Jump to content

Battlefield 2042 (22 October 2021) - Information Thread


Recommended Posts

Maybe they will bring back the freedom that Battlefield 2 had. Where you could actually run up to a jet or helicopter and take off. Plus actually have space to fly around a sprawling map . The newer games never felt right to me. Like you fly so fast you barely have time to line up a shot before you're flying out of bounds or into the ground. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

More players than ever before? Are they going for 128 players? I'm sure there will be a battle royale mode for this, so I wonder if maybe that's what it's talking about (I'm sure they learned from the failures of Firestorm). 

 

Hopefully corona hasn't impacted the development of this too much. I hope we don't get a situation where at launch it's clear it should have been delayed 3-6 months. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, best3444 said:

Jesus this will probably look amazing. Will it be a good game? I hope so!

 

It’s not called Bad Company 3 so it’ll just be okay.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

I hope it's actually good at launch, and not rushed like...every BF since 2 or 3.

 

Personally I hope there is a much larger focus on RUSH this time!

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, stepee said:

 

Personally I hope there is a much larger focus on RUSH this time!

 

Honestly I wish they'd just have 3 modes:

  • DM
  • Conquest
  • Rush

No BR or Mega Operations or anything to divide the player base.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

They need to fix Conquest ticket counter, having games drag on because no one can figure out to get out of spawn and back cap sucks. They also need to implement a bonus for jumping in on the losing side and turning the tide and start penalizing player who side hop to get a win.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

Honestly I wish they'd just have 3 modes:

  • DM
  • Conquest
  • Rush

No BR or Mega Operations or anything to divide the player base.

 

YUP

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, stepee said:

 

It’s not called Bad Company 3 so it’ll just be okay.

 

Technically we don't know what it's called, and we've just been calling it Battlefield 6 in place of any other name, so for all we know it is going to be Bad Company 3! There was a rumour that BC3 was supposed to come out in 2018, but things got switched around, and DICE put out a WWII theme because that's what EA wanted, and that's part of why it was rushed. 

 

1 hour ago, CitizenVectron said:

I hope it's actually good at launch, and not rushed like...every BF since 2 or 3.

 

I remember Battlefield 1 actually launched in a pretty good state. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Brick said:

 

Technically we don't know what it's called, and we've just been calling it Battlefield 6 in place of any other name, so for all we know it is going to be Bad Company 3! There was a rumour that BC3 was supposed to come out in 2018, but things got switched around, and DICE put out a WWII theme because that's what EA wanted, and that's part of why it was rushed. 

 

 

I remember Battlefield 1 actually launched in a pretty good state. 

 

Fair! Honestly I’ve only read this thread and just assumed it was announced as that lol. I’ll hope!

Link to post
Share on other sites

DICE has its work cut out for them to get me interested in Battlefield 6.

 

Battlefield V was just. so. very. boring!

 

What BFV sorely lacked was the sense of "spectacle" that BF1 had.  There was just a grandeur about the majority of BF1 maps that just wasn't present in the BFV maps. 

 

Say what you will about BF1's behemoths -- admittedly they were really kinda stupid  -- but they at least added something "different" to the gameplay and something "different" was what was missing from BFV.

 

And the presentation of BF1 was just so much better than BFV -- little touches like the whistles going off at the start of the round really helped enhance the atmosphere.

 

I'd like to think DICE realizes just how important BF6 is to the future of the studio simply because they essentially "killed" BFV long before it was supposed to wind-down to focus development resources on BF6.

 

And, for the love of God, DICE - DON'T BOTHER WITH A SINGLE-PLAYER CAMPAIGN.  No one wants to play them and every single one that you've created sucks major donkey dick anyway!

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

DICE has its work cut out for them to get me interested in Battlefield 6.

 

Battlefield V was just. so. very. boring!

 

What BFV sorely lacked was the sense of "spectacle" that BF1 had.  There was just a grandeur about the majority of BF1 maps that wasn't present in the BFV maps. 

 

Say what you will about BF1's behemoths -- admittedly they were really kinda stupid  -- but they at least added something "different" to the gameplay and something "different" was what was missing from BFV.

 

And the presentation of BF1 was just so much better than BFV -- little touches like the whistles going off at the start of the round really helped enhance the atmosphere.

 

I'd like to think DICE realizes just how important BF6 is to the future of the studio simply because they essentially "killed" BFV long before it was supposed to wind-down to focus development resources on BF6.

 

And, for the love of God, DICE - DON'T BOTHER WITH A SINGLE-PLAYER CAMPAIGN.  No one wants to play them and every single one that you've created sucks major donkey dick anyway!

 

Maybe I'm out of touch, but I feel like if BF6 sucks then it's the end of the series. Dice is great, but I just have a feeling that EA is going to manage the series into the ground.

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

And, for the love of God, DICE - DON'T BOTHER WITH A SINGLE-PLAYER CAMPAIGN. 

I mean, if it was BFBC3 I'd want the SPC. I loved the characters. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Bacon said:

I mean, if it was BFBC3 I'd want the SPC. I loved the characters. 

 

Sure - the Bad Company crew is totally fine for a campaign!

 

But -- my God -- the "War Stories" from the main series are goddamned AWFUL!

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

But -- my God -- the "War Stories" from the main series are goddamned AWFUL!

I wouldn't know. Only other Battlefield I have ever played was BF3 and I hate that game's MP and SPC. BF3 was like the BF version of Assassin's Creed 3 where I never played another game in the series and never will unless, It becomes Bad Company again/Desmond is retconned to never have died. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s a pretty common consensus people want Bad Company 3 right? Who see the weirdos that actually don’t want that?

 

Also that means more than just the name and the characters, Dice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All out military warfare with ‘more players than ever before’

 

Honestly this quote worries me. This screams of giant maps with shit spread so far apart that it takes forever to get from one capture point to another. Some of the maps on BFV were sooooooo damn boring, especially if the teams weren't full. You'd have this gigantic ass map with practically nothing happening on it.

 

The reason Bad Company 2 hit that sweet spot was because the maps were big, but not too big. The 32-player count on consoles was perfect. It was just big enough to spread the action out, but small enough to where a good squad could make a difference in a match. I play BFV and I honestly don't feel like anything I'm doing matters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, I hope to high heaven that this next-gemeration version of the Frostbite Engine does a better job with the interaction between the player and the environmental geometry.

 

I got really sick and tired of having my forward momentum coming to a dead stop because my character was unable to step over a whopping 2 inch rise in the terrain.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For the Bad Company series I'd like them to try and do something different. Go crazy with it. As it stands, what really separates it from the main series? Nothing really other than a campaign with returning characters. Cool, but the multiplayer is what people really play Battlefield for, so make it different than the main series. Even if they want to cut it back to 32 players, and focus on Rush, that's a good start, but not enough. I say since the Bad Company series is more comedic, and goofy, to just reflect that in the multiplayer. Make it more arcadey, have me be able to do outlandish things like grab onto the wing of a plane, and shoot from it as it flies around, have more jokey dialogue, give me crazy executions when I sneak up behind someone. Make it absolutely bonkers and over the top, almost parodic of the super macho, Po-faced seriousness military genre. Part of the charm of Bad Company 2 was that it came out after Modern Warfare 2, and took the piss out of it a little. Ramp that up to 11!

 

Now I know what some people are going to say, "I don't want that in Battlefield", and that's fine, but this would be for the Bad Company sub series, so the mainline series would be the more down to Earth, serious style like 3, 4, 1, and V have been. So if you want the more grounded, military shooter that's a bit more sandbox tactical, instead of arcade twitch, that's what 6 would be for. 

 

That being said, if they did go that route for Bad Company 3, I'm not sure if now would be the right time to release something like that when people were disappointed in V, so perhaps it would be better to release 6 to give those people the game they were hoping to get with V, just in whatever setting 6 is (probably modern), and then a few years later release BC3 that's super crazy, and then again a few years later they go back to the me straightforward type with like a Vietnam setting for Battlefield 7.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what differentiated Bad Company was that it was Battlefield for consoles. They had restrictions that the PC crowd didn't have, so they worked with it and the result was fantastic.

 

Now they have George Lucas syndrome. They can do whatever they want so they want to include "all the things" and they've lost all creativity and personality in the process.

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, XxEvil AshxX said:

I think what differentiated Bad Company was that it was Battlefield for consoles. They had restrictions that the PC crowd didn't have, so they worked with it and the result was fantastic.

 

Now they have George Lucas syndrome. They can do whatever they want so they want to include "all the things" and they've lost all creativity and personality in the process.

 

I get that. First one was basically Battlefield with a proper story, and made for consoles, but now, at this point where consoles can handle Battlefield at its fullest (i.e. large 64 player maps, with jets and tanks all over the place), there really is no distinguishing between the multiplayer of a mainline Battlefield game, and the multiplayer of a Bad Company game. I think they should do something to make them more distinct. 

 

Think of it this way, a modern military Battlefield game is released, and the multiplayer is great, and in fact there is no single player this time. It's Battlefield 6. Now instead that exact same game is released, but there's a single player campaign that follows Marlowe, Sweetwater, Haggard, and Sarge Redford, and suddenly it's Bad Company 3. That to me just lacks creativity. If the campaign is supposed to be a parody, jokey kind of game, reflect that in the multiplayer as well. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Brick said:

 

I get that. First one was basically Battlefield with a proper story, and made for consoles, but now, at this point where consoles can handle Battlefield at its fullest (i.e. large 64 player maps, with jets and tanks all over the place), there really is no distinguishing between the multiplayer of a mainline Battlefield game, and the multiplayer of a Bad Company game. I think they should do something to make them more distinct. 

 

Think of it this way, a modern military Battlefield game is released, and the multiplayer is great, and in fact there is no single player this time. It's Battlefield 6. Now instead that exact same game is released, but there's a single player campaign that follows Marlowe, Sweetwater, Haggard, and Sarge Redford, and suddenly it's Bad Company 3. That to me just lacks creativity. If the campaign is supposed to be a parody, jokey kind of game, reflect that in the multiplayer as well. 

 

I'd be perfectly fine if they went the Forza Motorsport / Forza Horizon route. If one doesn't appeal to you, you have the other.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 04/02/2021 at 11:38 PM, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

Also, I hope to high heaven that this next-gemeration version of the Frostbite Engine does a better job with the interaction between the player and the environmental geometry.

 

I got really sick and tired of having my forward momentum coming to a dead stop because my character was unable to step over a whopping 2 inch rise in the terrain.

 

While they're at it they should make sure that this engine is adaptable, and easy to develop for. If EA wants this to be their in-house, proprietary engine that they use for their franchises, then DICE needs to make sure that other developers aren't pulling their hair out trying to design a game that isn't a first person Battlefield game. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...
  • Commissar SFLUFAN changed the title to Battlefield 2042 (22 October 2021) - Information Thread

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...