The battlefield has always been a difficult franchise. Is it historical or modern? Is it competitive or leisure? Is it a tactical, team-based experience, or is it just a good place to satisfy your heart?
The answer to all these questions is: yes.
The battlefield means many things to many people, but I will tell you what the battlefield means to me. Battlefield is about reminiscing with my friends. This is an action movie that I can play with my friends. If I want to participate in a prolonged infantry exchange, or wanton destruction in a tank, or tie explosives to a jeep and crash it into an enemy vehicle, I can. The series almost completely produced those "remember that time" dialogues.
The reason the early Battlefield games are so special is that they were specifically designed to create these dialogues. The "Only in the Battlefield" label may be a memetic marketing tool, but it resonates with many fans of the series for a reason. With the tools and context available in the sandbox, DICE specifically designed battlefield games so that players can create their own emergency narratives.
Although I really like Battlefield 1 where the series recently returned to historical novels, and to a lesser extent, Battlefield V, there is still something missing. Yes, Battlefield 1 is incredibly immersive and atmospheric. Yes, Battlefield V captures my weakness in World War II-themed shooting games, but neither of these games creates an environment that stimulates my imagination. On the contrary, they feel too down-to-earth, too focused on killing, and are relatively unconcerned about the freedom that players have worked hard to create in the previous game. In other words, they don't feel like a sandbox like previous battlefield games.
DICE clearly noticed this in its latest work, because "Battlefield 2042" is not just a destruction sandbox-it is the whole damn playground.
It is appropriate to set "Battlefield 2042" in the next few decades, because it will leave most of the past content behind to create a more unlimited sense of freedom.
One of the most obvious omissions is the single player campaign. Compared with its rival "Call of Duty", the battle of "Battlefield" rarely stands out except for the content that must be included. Of course, Bad Company derives at least a personal protagonist, and the Battlefield 1 war story has realized the novel effect of turning the First World War into a dynamic thrill, but their narrative is not iconic, and may even be Indispensable, for example, the campaign of "Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare" is like this. Yes, Battlefield 3 has some outstanding moments, but its most memorable mission "Go hunting" is basically just "falling from the sky" completed four years later in modern warfare.
Ironically, DICE believes that Battlefield 2042 should be the first game to give up a single-player campaign since the series debuted on consoles, because it has the richest and richest game of any game in the series except Battlefield 2142. The most interesting background story. In essence, natural disasters and global power outages have led to the collapse of almost all world governments except the United States and Russia. Those who are forced to flee their country to find shelter and safety are called No-Pats. As shown in the "Exodus" trailer, a mysterious figure named Oz triggered a series of events that caused No-Pat soldiers to fall into a proxy war between the remaining two superpowers. This may be the richest narrative world created by DICE, but it is only used as a background for multiplayer games, not as a setting for activities.
Unlike any single player story, "Battlefield 2042" is completely composed of three different multiplayer experience: total war, dangerous zone and portal. Total War is essentially a traditional multiplayer experience of 2042 conquests and breakthroughs, although there are 128 players on Xbox Series X/S, PS5 and PC; the danger zone is a squad-based elimination mode, you need to use a data drive To extract; the portal is... well, I will go to the portal later.
Another irony of "Battlefield 2042" is that its most traditional experience, Total War, proved to be the most controversial before the game was released. That's because it replaces some of the tried-and-tested career systems of the series with a new expert system-some variants of assault/engineer, medical, support, and reconnaissance roles. Players can now choose from 10 expert characters, instead of four general classes with specific gadgets and weapons, each character has its own unique characteristics and professional gadgets. More importantly, although each expert is classified as playing a role similar to the occupation before the battlefield, players can choose any weapon and any auxiliary gadgets they want.
It is understandable why most people in the community would look at this idea on paper and completely lose their minds as they have done in the past few months. At least in theory, the four-shift system creates a kind of rock-paper-scissors balance. Some classes are good at something, others are good at other things. Objectively, no class is better than another. Having to balance 10 independent experts who can use any weapon they want seems like a nightmare, right?
This is the simple fact that the battlefield community, generally speaking, has no idea what it is talking about. The class system has never reached a true balance-there are always stronger classes and weaker (ie, supportive) classes. In Battlefield 4, doctors (called assault soldiers at the time) can use the best guns in the game and items that allow them to heal themselves and their teammates. In Battlefield V, the doctors once again obtained some of the most powerful weapons in the game. They can also heal themselves, which is especially powerful considering the game's attrition system. In "Battlefield 1", due to the one-time "sweet spot" mechanism, the scouts account for half of each team.
Another misunderstanding about the battlefield is that the traditional career system will lead to more teamwork, because each player knows what their specific role is, and 10 independent experts can use any auxiliary tools they want will stifle teamwork. However, one of the most prominent memes in the community is that hungry medical staff often simply walk past their fallen teammates to chase down the enemy instead of performing their duties and resurrecting their allies. Another problem is how difficult it is for the auxiliary player to put down the ammunition box, and this is actually the only team-related task they need to perform.
I would not say that expert systems can improve teamwork. It doesn't. But, more importantly, if you want, it will not destroy the opportunity to take the initiative. When it comes to teamwork in the battlefield, the system DICE gives players has never and will never influence players to do what they should do. Instead, they let real heroes—people who really play roles in battlefield games—do the work. This is the point: if you want to heal, supply, resurrect or repair, the expert system of Battlefield 2042 still provides you with all the tools. Nothing can stop you from playing the team role that the battlefield has always allowed you to play. However, team players must now create their ultimate team-friendly loading options more powerful than ever. It's as if DICE no longer designs around the communities it wants, but instead designs around the communities it owns.
What the experts provide is a completely different game style, as well as really interesting gadgets. Whether it’s MacKay’s grab gun, Paik’s EMG-X scanner, Sundance’s wing-mounted and smart grenade, or Angel’s loading box, each expert gadget has its own position and has been created in previous battlefield games Game opportunities that are more or less impossible to achieve. If Battlefield’s professional system had to be cancelled so that I could wing-fit around the map, land behind the enemy, place a spawning beacon for my other squads to maintain continuous flanking attacks, and throw grenades that track enemy helicopters, So that's it.
My only complaint to experts is that it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between friendly soldiers and enemy soldiers. However, since the public beta, DICE has made considerable improvements to the 2042 user interface, so it is almost always obvious when players are in your team, because the blue dots on their heads are usually easy to see. However, it would be better if DICE creates different colors for the character uniforms, depending on their faction. Every expert has a large number of cosmetics and skins to unlock, but they all depend on which side you are fighting for. Even a simple red will work in the case of blue. The worst part of this system is that it makes the game play without certain HUD elements for a more immersive experience-which is a great fun of any battlefield game-practically impossible. Unless you want to waste a lot of bullets shooting friendly forces.
Combined with the new flexibility of the expert system, creating custom loads and proposing novel combinations of weapons and gadgets is straightforward fun. Because we unlocked all weapons, gadgets, and experts since the review event I participated in, I was able to see all the options offered by 2042 at the time of launch, but I still felt that I barely touched the surface.
Some of my loading echoes classic battlefield prototypes—my "classic support" builds feature LMG and ammunition boxes—while others are more creative. My "Falck's Specialty" equipment is named after the in-game medical expert and is equipped with armor plates, shotguns, and smoke bombs so that I can start operations and safely resurrect teammates. However, this loading is also effective for Dozer, who is an assault expert whose main equipment is a ballistic shield that allows him to actively push the enemy. When creating equipment, I don’t just think that I make simple choices based on the weapons and gadgets I want to play; I think this game provides me with creative problem-solving tools, depending on where my team is. environment.
The loading system of "Battlefield 2042" is so attractive because it is very flexible. If you don’t like the weapon being loaded, you can change it to another weapon that best suits your current situation. The same goes for your gadget. You can do this from the favorites screen in the main menu, where all the equipment you have acquired has been given life, but you can also change your equipment on the respawn screen during the game.
Another new addition to the Battlefield 2042 game is its Plus menu, which allows you to select three sights, ammunition types, download attachments, and barrels to make changes during the game. Certain accessories can significantly affect the performance of the weapon without pushing it beyond the scope of the intended weapon category. For example, you can replace the standard barrel and red dot scope with a long-range scope, and the extended barrel on an assault rifle with a greater range, but it will never be comparable to a DMR or sniper rifle. -Distance ability. Some "Battlefield" players may scorn the concept of not being completely bound by the attachments on the gun, but most players will appreciate the flexibility provided by the Plus system. The only problem is that once you enter the competition, you cannot change the three accessories available for each slot, so make sure you are satisfied with your choices before joining.
All in all, "Battlefield 2042" offers 22 weapons at the launch of Total War and Danger Zone (although there are more in Portal). There are four submachine guns, four assault rifles, two light machine guns, three DMRs, three sniper rifles, three shotguns, and three pistols. Compared with previous battlefield games, this may not sound much, but these games have a bad habit of simply redesigning guns that are exactly the same as other guns. The weapons in 2042 all feel completely different from other weapons in their respective categories. In addition, it may still take several days to obtain each weapon, and it may take several days to unlock all the accessories of each weapon. Compared to other games in the series, I wouldn't question the small size of the roster, but at least the weapons provided by DICE feel different from each other. More importantly, the shootout is arguably the best in the series so far, and the time to kill actually feels very balanced.
If "Battlefield 2042" does not determine the most important thing: the map, then these elements-experts, weapons, loading-are not important. Fortunately, the 2042 map is not only the largest in the series, but it is also probably the best map since "Battlefield 3".
Excluding the six remade maps in the portal, Battlefield 2042 introduced seven new maps at launch: Orbit, Update, Abandonment, Manifest, Kaleidoscope, Hourglass, and Escape. In fact, I typed all of these without looking up, which shows how memorable each map is, and each map provides its own unique experience. For example, the kaleidoscope is composed of tall skyscrapers and vast parks in dense urban environments. The stranded freighter as the center of Discarded may itself be a complete map, while Manifest's night dock setting is labyrinthine, claustrophobic and dizzy.
Verticality has returned greatly on most of the 2042 maps, creating a more dazzling sense of proportions and providing the opportunity to take full advantage of the game’s enhanced parachute system. There are also complex points of interest in the back, which can hold extended and dynamic firefights. Highlights include the hourglass stadium, orbital rocket manufacturing plant, and Renewal's border wall. The points you are trying to capture actually feel that they are of strategic significance-although they occurred during the two world wars, the last few battlefields lacked this.
A larger map also means a longer coverage distance, which is where the vehicle call system of Battlefield 2042 comes in. Although it rarely worked properly in the beta, the system was flawless in the build of the game we played for review. You can call any of the three types of transportation vehicles in the game, including hovercraft and Ranger, which is a dog-like drone that can follow you and shoot at your enemies. If you find that you have gone too far, you may just have played the wrong game because the call-in system is your best friend.
As for other vehicles, I think only land-based vehicles are eligible to talk. The tanks in Battlefield 2042 feel good; they are basically a mixture of Battlefield 4 and Battlefield V armor. They retain the same sighting system as the BFV, but have similar controls and weapons to the BF4. They feel powerful, but they are not suppressed, because infantry players have more tools than ever to destroy them, including EMP grenades, Casper's drones, and Rao's ability to crack enemy armor. Although anyone can carry a rocket launcher with them, I never felt overwhelmed by the infantry trying to shoot me down. The tank feels...very good, as is the anti-aircraft vehicle. I really have no complaints, although I believe that this situation will change as better tank players discover their hidden strengths and traits.
As for the aircraft, to be honest, I don't know how to judge them, except that I never felt that I was harassed by a helicopter. They are fun to fly and feel a little better to use than the beta version, but I am not a dedicated pilot, so I can't say how well they are balanced. Nonetheless, the fact that helicopters, jets, tanks, and transportation vehicles can all exist in the same centralized space of Breakthrough and never feel completely overwhelming may explain the balance between their design and the way the map is laid out.
You see, the main content provided by the 2042 map is space. As far as I am concerned, Battlefield: Bad Company 2 and the Rush mode in the game are still the best Battlefield has ever been, because its map design and number of players provide players with room to breathe and move. The breakthroughs in Battlefield 1 and Battlefield 5 are affected by the relatively small map space, which means more chaos, noisy accumulation, and less violent clarity. More space means more space for movement, planning and advancement. In "Bad Company 2", space opened up space for pockets of action, and skirmishes put the overall progress of the game in the background.
The seven Total War maps of Battlefield 2042 somehow managed to balance the chaos of the Battlefield 1 map with the sandbox experiments and the more intimate battle space of Bad Company 2. This is most obvious in breakthroughs, which is now a mandatory mode of attack and defense, where one team must capture a series of sectors while the other team tries to stop them. The sectors in the 2042 map provide a wide space for players to enter interesting locations and create unforgettable moments. However, if you want to plunge into the mouth of hell, you can do the same.
The breakthrough in 2042 is really special, with 128 players-spectacle, chaos, and a set of tactics. Due to the increase in the number of players, it may not produce the instant human confrontation that would appear in Bad Company 2's Rush. But for me, in terms of the gaming opportunities it offers, this is the most interesting in the ten years of Battlefield.
Conquest's progress in the 128-player game in 2042 was not as successful as Breakthrough, but it still tried something new, and its hit rate was higher than its turnover rate. DICE has made significant progress in its new "cluster" strategy, making the conquest work together with an enhanced number of players, where instead of a single capture point, but a sector composed of multiple capture points, the team must hold all capture points To own that department. When a division has two to three points, it's as if you are playing a smaller game of dominance in a larger conquest game, which is really fun. Oops, you can play the entire conquest game in one area, walking back and forth with several other teams, no team completely occupying the area.
But most departments only provide one or two occupation points, which greatly reduces the interest and dynamics of competing for them. Where the cluster should encourage players to spend time locking and defending a sector, and don’t want to give up the land you’ve worked so hard to obtain, a one-flag or two-flag sector feels like a conquest in other battlefield games. It's not that it's not fun, because it still provides a lot of experimentation opportunities and sandbox fools. It's just harder to take it seriously, more scattered, fewer game modes and more excuses for hanging out. Although everyone wants every multiplayer game to be "competitive", it's good.
The second part of the Battlefield 2042 triptych is Hazard Zone, a new squad-based mode that attempts to provide the essence of the battle royale experience, rather than a real battle royale game. Sandwiched between Hunt: Showdown and Escape From Tarkov, Hazard Zone succeeded in providing a mode of real teamwork in battlefield games, but it failed to provide any real long-term bets to maintain player investment.
Each game in Hazard Zone is played on one of the seven total war maps in 2042, and each time is randomly selected. Eight four-person squads (or six squads on previous-generation consoles) are placed on the map, and as many data drives as possible from the crashed satellite must be obtained before being extracted from the map. The problem is that there are only two opportunities to extract using the data drive per game, which means that only two of the eight teams can actually get the biggest rewards.
The danger zone played an almost perfect role as a more competitive model in 2042. Even during the preparation phase of the game, coordinating with your team is the most important thing. Since each squad can only have one expert, you must decide who will play which role and which experts are best suited for the map and specific deployment points your team gets. Communication on the ground is also critical, because players will soon be eliminated, and even a team with one less player will find themselves at a disadvantage. However, like many battle royale games today, you can use redeployment beacons to get teammates back into the game. Most importantly, the game only lasts 20 minutes at most, so you can immediately go in and out and start another adventure. The narrative surrounding the danger zone—maps and graphics, and the lines that contextualize the pattern—is almost enough to keep players engaged, especially if they are already involved in 2042's overall novel.
There is something missing in Hazard Zone, but I have a hard time determining what it is. The focus of each game is to extract as many data drives as possible in order to earn as many black market points as possible. Dark market points allow you to purchase items such as weapons, gadgets, and privileges from your personal collection before each game. The items you buy should make it easier for you to survive in the danger zone so that you can withdraw more drives and earn more points, buy things that will help you in the next game, and so on.
I asked myself why the danger zone seems meaningless as a mode, and when you really think about it, all other modes are equally meaningless. I am not referring to every mode in a battlefield game-I am referring to every mode in a general multiplayer game. Obviously, the goal of every multiplayer game mode is to win. But what did you really win? In the battle royale mode, you will be the last standing player. In the team deathmatch, you will get the most kills. They are equally meaningful and meaningless, depending on the person. So why does Hazard Zone feel so meaningless but completely meaningless?
I think part of the reason has to do with how you win. You don't have to kill all other players in the match. In fact, you may not even meet other players. Although unlikely, you can use the data drive to extract without even encountering another squad controlled by the player. It doesn't make sense to win without defeating other players in a multiplayer game. Zero sense of accomplishment, zero stakes. You can still earn points by killing AI-controlled enemies, so you will most likely never walk away without gaining anything.
What Hazard Zone really needs is a motivation to win. Whether it is a ranking model or a more generous cosmetic reward, it depends on DICE. But there is something missing in the current iteration of the model, and DICE needs to figure out what it is. The narrative background surrounding the danger zone is great; the preparation phase, actions, and atmosphere all create a truly fascinating experience within the 2042 sandbox framework. It only needs one thing that makes players really want to choose it in other modes of the game-especially portals.
Battlefield Portal is undoubtedly the most exciting thing about 2042 for many players, especially long-term fans of the series. Portal allows you to create custom battlefield modes, browse and play other people's custom modes, and experience remade versions of six classic battlefield maps and related weapons and classes. For some players, just being able to play standard Rush on the updated versions of Bad Company 2’s Valparaiso and Arica Harbor is enough, but Portal is much more than that.
In order to fully evaluate Portal, I think I must break it down into the most basic parts. First, let's talk about the six remastered versions of the Battlefield 1942, Bad Company 2 and Battlefield 3 maps available in Portal at launch (and all seven new maps from 2042). To say that Ripple Effect Studios (EA Studios, formerly DICE LA, leading the development of Portal) is absolutely certain that the map is an understatement. The designers who updated the six maps for the latest version of the Frostbite engine managed to maintain the spirit and gameplay of these maps, while modernizing them to make them look new again.
The ports of Valparaiso and Arica are particularly stunning, even the relatively new ones (at least in terms of the engines on which they debuted) and the Noshahr Canal and the Caspian Sea border benefit from more modern technology. What is even more impressive is how these maps retain the same game moments in some way. When I watched the offensive team go around the corner and descend in the second part of the map, I felt that I had a flashback in Arica Port. Players use the same flank routes, the same sniper points, and the exact same tactics they used 11 years ago. The only map that thinks it can be used more modern is El Alamein, because the desert’s empty feel is in sharp contrast to everything else in 2042. However, my nostalgia for 1942 is not in Bad Company 2 like I did, so adding too much content to El Alamein may completely destroy the spirit of what the original version of the map was trying to do.
The courses related to each of the three classic games have also been updated, although their inclusion in the Portal makes me feel a little overwhelmed. Don't get me wrong: the choice of (quite generous) weapons and gadgets that appear in these games is great, but there are still something too modern about their Battlefield 2042.
Part of the problem is that the UI has not changed between All-Out Warfare and Portal. HUD, loading menu, everything looks exactly the same in all three experiences. Although I like the UI and HUD in 2042, it feels a bit cumbersome to navigate it to find weapons, accessories, and gadgets for each title category compared to the original version. This is certainly not enough to ruin the gaming experience as a 1942 anti-tank soldier or Bad Company 2 medic wearing a red beret, but adherents to the details may be a little disappointed with the original version of the game's respective user interface and the HUD is missing. I expect that my health as a Bad Company 2 character can only be judged by how bloody my screen is, but no matter who you play, the HUD contains the same health bar.
But, honestly, it's just that I am very picky. More importantly, even the most basic reproduction of the classic mode featuring classic characters on the classic map is an explosion, even some of the more modern updates of the series, such as being able to be a soldier in 1942 or Bad Company 2 Go through the window (yes, I'm too old, I remember there was a time when you couldn't do this in a first-person shooter). This is not just nostalgia: Weapons, maps and occupations in early battlefield games have now been updated with modern paint, which can fight against any other maps in any other modern shooting game, whether it is a battlefield or not. The map included when Portal was released was actually one of the best multiplayer maps ever designed, and now I can definitely say that this is not my nostalgia.
The updated classic map is only a small part of the Portal puzzle. The main attraction is that Portal allows you to create, play and share custom battlefield modes based on the 2042 engine.
Creating a custom pattern is basically a two-step process. With Portal's browser-based modification tool, you can browse a series of predetermined attributes, which you can adjust with convenient sliders. The process is basically like this: you choose a starting game mode from conquest, sprint, team deathmatch or free melee; determine the basic rules, such as the number of players for each team, time limit, and damage value; then choose What game do the soldiers of each team come from, what weapons can be used, etc. You can even adjust things like movement speed, whether the player can lie down, or even whether the player can aim at the target-these can even be adjusted according to the team.
But this is only the beginning of the customization process. If you choose Team Deathmatch or Free-For-All, you can also change the mode rules in the game's visual logic editor. It is very easy to use and difficult to understand. I even consider trying to make something in it. I am anxious.
In order to show off what players can create with the logic editor, DICE let us play a few weird modes. The first mode, VIP Carnival, requires two teams to kill each other's randomly assigned VIP 15 times. After the VIP dies, a new player on the team takes over as the VIP, and so on. The problem is that every time you die, whether you are a VIP or not, you will come in with a new, randomly assigned load. The other mode is basically a free deathmatch, where the player's speed increases and the respawn time increases. But the weirdest mode we played was a free deathmatch, where everyone only had a rocket launcher. The key to this problem is that in order to reload your rocket launcher, you need to jump five times.
VIP Carnival and "Rocket Jump" (not "Rocket Jump") deathmatch mode perfectly illustrate the prospects and limitations of Portal. Both modes were created using the visual logic editor, which allows you to make rules that do not yet exist, but are also limited to free melee and team deathmatches. Ripple Effect says that introducing the logic editor into already structured goal-based patterns (such as conquer and sprint) will essentially break these patterns, but this excuse makes no sense to me. Even if the end result is a complete disaster, isn't the whole point of Portal for players to experiment? Does the idea of preventing players from doing this completely violate the spirit of experimentation?
In addition, even the more basic modifiers have strange restrictions on them, although it is difficult to tell how dramatic these restrictions are if I have not played a game with them. The movement speed modifier doesn't seem to be as high as I want, but I don't know what the 1.5 movement speed multiplier actually looks like in the game until it launches and I can test my own creation. I was disappointed to find that the number of biggest enemy AIs I can have in a team is 60, and after reserving space for 8 human players, I should have 120 slots on the server.
But maybe I have surpassed myself in Portal. Even before the launch of "Battlefield 2042", I have created five or six modes with basic customization options that I can't wait to play. This did not even teach myself how to use the logic editor. When you consider that the tools included in Ripple Effect allow players to share their creations with each other, and that this may lead to a real community of grassroots creators around the mode, it's hard not to be impressed by what is already here.
Considering the huge scale of "Battlefield 2042", it is not surprising that DICE still needs to solve some tricky small problems.
Although the version of the game I played (the same as the early access version, even less updated than the full version) fixed most of the bugs in the public beta, I still encountered some problems. Sometimes, my characters seem to be out of sync, which prevents me from aiming at the target or getting any of my bullets to be recorded. A mistake that prevents players from resurrecting their fallen teammates seems to be quite common among commentators. There is also a strange error that makes the player look like they are making a cactus when running from a distance.
My controller also encountered several errors, some of which seemed to be caused when I switched to the alternate button scheme. Throughout the review campaign, issues such as being unable to cut off my slide or dodge when trying to switch variable sights have persisted. Other times, I cannot switch the role I want to play, although this only seems to happen in Portal. When I was playing the PC version of the game, I was worried that there would be some rare but substantial problems when using the controller to play the game.
In addition to errors, there are some design decisions, mainly around the UI, which I just don't like. Although there is a health bar on the enemy's head, I still hope that the game will tell you the damage caused by each shot by rewarding points-although DICE may not want the player to get XP for each amount of damage. Nonetheless, this is quite a bit of information that is currently missing from the battlefield experience. The lack of a traditional scoreboard is also a bit strange, although it does reinforce the view that fighting for points is worse than fighting for fun. If I didn't check the scoreboard every 10 seconds and compare it with other players, I would definitely feel less stressed and more engaged, so maybe this is a good thing after all.
In the end, there are only a few readability aspects that don't look good. On the one hand, as one of the experts Rao, I am sometimes not sure what I am doing. It seems that you can hold down the button and successfully "crack" something, without even aiming at something that can be cracked. Paik's EMG-X scanner has a cooling time, but it is not clear when the cooling time will end and when I can use the scanner again. In view of the controversy surrounding the expert, DICE may still be adjusting her until the review activity.
But in fact, the only real problem with the basic design of "Battlefield 2042" is the lack of meaningful destruction in each level. Although I know that there are certain processing limitations in the scope of the game, I think I should be able to destroy a lot of structures, the walls begging for blasting, are just static structures. I know you cannot demolish all buildings, not only because it will cause the game to crash, but also because you need to have a good level design. Nonetheless, the fact that the tornado will not dismantle any structures stuck in its collision process will certainly weaken the effect of one of the more awesome aspects of the game.
It wasn't until I typed the last sentence that I completely forgot to write about the effects of tornadoes and other new weather in the game. The short version is this: they are great.
What I like about tornadoes is that DICE resists the temptation to let everything revolve around it (not literally). When a tornado appears, it adds a dynamic layer to the game, especially when it moves in a straight line directly on the point or sector you are trying to capture. It rarely appears and does not make people feel boring, but it often appears and players no longer go straight to it. It becomes an element in the game, a natural disaster that interferes with the more destructive behavior of humans. You can even use it strategically: once, a tornado appeared in the middle of a game in the danger zone, and my team used it to quickly traverse the map and ambush the team that was trying to evacuate.
Other weather events such as sandstorms on the hourglass have a more significant impact on the game atmosphere than on gameplay. As I mentioned before, each map has its own feel and style, which makes them look more diverse than they are now. The weather effect just adds visual value to what already exists. Indeed, every game I participated in during the review event felt like a new and refreshing experience.
"Battlefield 2042" is a difficult task in many respects. It subverts the traditional formula of the series, while still trying to retain the spirit that makes the battlefield special. It tries new things with a more competitive team model. It provides players with a complete platform to create their own battlefield mode. It includes seven new maps, six remade maps, more than 75 weapons and gadgets, and vehicles spanning a century-and packs all of them in a convenient bag.
Given DICE's record, it remains to be seen whether "Battlefield 2042" will be launched without any extensive issues, so please consider my final score and add an asterisk. Besides, the three-day retrospective activity is not as good as the years when I played this game. I feel that it is impossible to fully grasp everything that 2042 has to offer in a limited time. Specifically, although the overall progress system of the game allows you to unlock weapons, gadgets, and experts, and it looks quite balanced, we have already unlocked everything from the beginning, so I can’t fully say whether this system works as expected.
What I can say is that "Battlefield 2042" will become one of the most controversial games in the history of the series, but when will the release of "Battlefield" not cause fan controversy? Hardline turned it into a police and robber incident. "Battlefield 1" brought it back to the First World War, and this conflict seems impossible to turn into a AAA shooting game. "Battlefield 5" really rewrote history and changed its basic gameplay more often than I remember.
Most importantly, Battlefield 2042 felt like a real battlefield game for the first time in about eight years, when BF4 provided us with all the tools of a modern military sandbox. But more importantly, 2042 feels most like a battlefield because it leaves much of the content that the series should contain. By abandoning the old career system and providing players with the tools to make their own modes, 2042 provides so much freedom, so many choices, and so many opportunities to create those memorable moments-you and your friends over the years The kind that I've been talking about.
Battlefield 2042 brings the sandbox back to the series in a bold and controversial way. The new expert system may seem blasphemous at first, but it opens up game opportunities that were impossible in previous games. A large number of well-designed maps provide plenty of space for experiments and emergent stories, and the mode is very good. This is just an all-out war. In between, the danger zone and the vast battlefield portal, Battlefield 2042 provides something for everyone without feeling that it is stretched too thin. This is the true evolution of the series, and it reverses the stagnation that threatens the future of the series. It will not be suitable for everyone, but for players who desire to get imagination and fun from the battlefield, it will provide them with everything they desire, and more.
Since 2017, Michael Goroff has been writing and editing for EGM. You can follow him on Twitter @gogogoroff.
We use cookies for analysis, advertising and improvement of our website. You agree to our use of cookies by closing this message box or continuing to use our website.
For more information, including how to change your settings, please refer to our Cookie Policy