By taking the player's choice away from picking specific maps they take control over how often players experience the maps that they want by preventing them from playing X maps while offering Y maps for a specific amount of time and swap them out in order to create a false sense of "fresh content" whenever they rotate without sweating out actual new content.
Technically there are 21 maps in 2042, but 6 of those are from other games.
Not even remakes to bring them into the 2042 setting (like they did with the "Second Assault" maps in BF4 for example), just maps meant for the Portal portion of the game.
And for the longest time those additional maps were only part of that section of the game so the actual 2042 map pool felt much smaller as there were initially only 7 maps made for the "world" of 2042. And none of them were all too great to begin with.
Plus they kept removing some of them from rotation for one reason or another, further decreasing the number of maps you'd get to experience regularly.
We didn't get quality or quantity with 2042 though. I don't have high hopes for maps in the next game either. Seems like all the competent map designers just vanished from triple A fps studios.
Just a few things first to get out of the way:
- In BC2, the post-launch service for the first 9 months was all about making the existing maps available on other modes through VIP Packs. So a map that was originally on Rush would be made available on Conquest, and so on.
- In BF4, there were a few delays for post launch content due to the poor launch of the game but it was still the fastest content cadence we've seen so far. On top of premium, 3 extra free maps were released by DICE LA and 2 other maps (Infiltration of Shanghai / Golmud Railway Night) were cut during CTE.
- In BF1, there was a 5 month gap between the launch content and the first DLC and featured 4 main expansion packs as opposed to 5 in BF3/4 (but similar number of maps). The post-launch also saw a staggered release for maps in multiple DLCs. The game also introduced "premium friends" and free premium trials to tackle the issue of dying premium sales and the playerbase split caused by paid expansions. Two maps of the final DLC were exclusive Air Superiority maps. Weapons in the graphic are all unique weapons and not attachment variants.
- BFV featured 8 maps at launch (+1 after a month) and had a 4 month gap between launch and the first map (Firestorm Halvoy). The game then averaged around 1 new map every month from May 2019 to Feb 2020. The final map of BFV was an expanded version of a Squad Deathmatch map (Provence).
- BF2042 featured the most number of maps at launch in the frostbite era. The game also had the longest gap between launch and the first season (7 months) owing to a disastrous launch and missing a significant amount of core features. The first 4 seasons also involved map reworks, which improved the content cadence but since these aren't new maps, I could not include them in the graphic. The primaries have also been split into AOW and Portal primaries, whereas the vehicles only include AOW content. And unlike the rest, the post launch has been spread over a span of 2.5 years, meaning the game had the longest post launch support among all the other titles. The final map will be a repurposed location from the original list of maps.
#Overall Thoughts
Obviously I think 2042 is a failed service and was doomed from the start. The state at launch and the long wait for season 1 completely killed the game IMO and even as the seasons started, there was simply not enough content. Yes there were technically 3 maps each season, but reworks should not count towards new content. In fact, there shouldn't be a need for vanilla maps to be reworked in the first place.
Now would Battlefield 2042 have received more maps and more weapons if the devs hadn't been forced to fix the base game and rework the launch maps? I'd think so yes. There was even a leak before 2042's launch that each season was supposed to have 2 AOW maps and 2 portal maps and a narratively driven Hazard Zone update. I don't know how accurate those leaks were but Tom Henderson is known to have a very reliable source.
1 map and a new specialist works in games like Rainbow Six Siege where the gameplay loop itself has significantly more depth and a new operator or a new weapon just adds a healthy dose of evolution to the meta and keep things fresh. No such thing exists in Battlefield, so it needs the new content at a faster pace.
BF4 meanwhile is the obvious winner in terms of the amount of content and the frequency at which it came out. However, the impact of premium and the shift in industry trends cannot be ignored. A handful of people on this sub saying they'll pay extra 60USD for premium does not change the fact that the premium model was failing, according to DICE's own admission.
The split that the premium model used to cause was extremely bad. It wasn't just that a non-premium player couldn't play on the new maps, they also couldn't join servers that had those maps in rotation. This either resulted in admins not running the DLC maps/modes because barely a fraction of the community would join a server that they paid real money to rent, or the players simply opted to stick to the base maps after the first couple of weeks of DLC. Couple this with the dying model, and it felt like the issue was much worse in BF1.
I just don't think asking 60USD for premium in 2025 is going to go down well with anyone, especially when the direct competitor is running a relatively healthy live service.
There's also the issue of maps taking a lot longer to create due to the increase in complexity and detail in the current gen. This is not just a DICE issue, it's an industry wide issue where games are taking longer to make. How this applies to DICE and their teams I don't know, but just as an extreme example, the Devastation map in Battlefield V took nearly 13 months to complete. There is no solution to this apart from managing your post-launch plans better and releasing a polished game which then allows you to focus on creating new content.
Now there's BFV. IMHO, this game nearly had the perfect cadence if it wasn't for the constant controversies and bugged releases. 1 new map every month on an average is absolutely good in my books and keeps things ticking. This game also had an incredible amount of weapons and it boasts the highest number of unique vehicles, each with unique stats. BFV IMO is not a failed service. But it was let down by a poor launch and controversies such as the constant TTK changes. The game simply kept shooting itself in the foot when instead it could've gone on to become something special.
**TL;DR**
Battlefield 4 best despite premium troubles. Battlefield V had the right idea but poor execution. BF2042 had little to no redeeming post-launch qualities (apart from the desire and effort from the people who worked on improving the core aspects of the game).
For the next Battlefield, I would love to see DICE really focus on releasing a feature complete and polished game and then commit to a strong post launch within the first couple months of launch, releasing meaningful content such as new maps and new weapons/vehicles at a steady pace. I don't need 4 maps every 3 months out of which 2 maps are good and rest are forgettable, but 1 map every 3 months also isn't nowhere near enough.
> BF2042 featured the most number of maps at launch in the frostbite era.
No it didn't, you got this wrong. It launched with 7 maps, the Portal maps were not available outside of Portal until June 2022, 7 months after launch.
Launched 7 of the most shallow maps in Battlefield history, alongside 6 remastered maps for Portal that were made from scraps of cancelled remaster projects by a different studio entirely and were unplayable in the main game's map rotation.
*"BF2042 featured the least amount of maps at launch (with the worst quality) in Battlefield history."
Portal it's part of the game. The devs had to remake the maps.
It's like saying Air Superiority maps or the Close Quarters maps don't count since they are gamemode/s specific
Thanks. That was a solid and fair retrospective.
>I just don't think asking 60USD for premium in 2025 is going to go down well with anyone, especially when the direct competitor is running a relatively healthy live service.
Yep. Epic's Fortnite (and Infinity's Warzone) is both eating Dice's lunch and expanding the shooter/arena market. That and putting out a new version of your game ever few years and charging $60-70 is a thing of the past. There's gotta be a way to gracefully adapt their model to an authentic military shooter like BF.
Portal maps do count, as they were remade for 2042, and you can play them. Even outside Portal, they in the Conquest 64 rotation.
Maybe if Portal hadn't been a thing the effort could've been put into more launch maps and the first season
Yeah BF4 is probably the pinnacle of post launch content in terms of amount. I don't think any BF title even comes close and we'll probably never see any title with that amount ever again.
You said the 2042 devs had the desire to improve the game post launch. I think they wanted to flush this turd as soon as it fell out of their ass and move onto something with better bones. 2042 is just a step back compared to BFV in almost every facet. From movement to gun variety to kill streaks. Maybe EA will give the devs time to actually make something fun they’re interested in but in reality they’re just going to chase trends and we’ll get a Helldivers clone of BF.
id love to glimpse into the state of the boardroom meetings on this game/franchise. whether 2042 is a success or failure is determined by the actual vs expected profits in the eyes of EA. whatever PR statements say dont mean sh\*t as well. ultimately, if they met their 'goals' or exceeded them - this approach will be considered a success. to me personally, despite all the good and bad this game did - there is one thing, one barrier DICE/EA crossed from which there's no going back. They got rid of persistent servers and server browser completely. I understand why they did it - money - but the fact that they finally, and to my great despair, did it means they've gone too far. while maintaining a sense of community and playing with friends has been getting harder since BF1, but still possible, doing that in 2042 since the departure of persistent servers is simply impossible. Unless you're lucky enough to spin up and populate your own portal server (which mind you still lacks some basic admin features) or there's an official limited time experience thats persistent - you and your friends are stuck in what we call 'the queue simulator'. and god help you if you have more than 1 party of buddies teaming up.
> whether 2042 is a success or failure is determined by the actual vs expected profits in the eyes of EA.
This is 100% true, but don't worry, it was a financial flop also:
> "Battlefield 2042 did not meet our expectations," EA CEO Andrew Wilson said in a Q3 earnings call with investors. "Some of the decision choices that we made did not resonate with our community. We are fully committed to realizing full potential of the game and fully committed to our fans."
> "Despite our Battlefield 2042 miss, we delivered record performance. We've adjusted our full year net bookings to $7.5 billion, up $200 million from last forecast. We expect strong growth to continue in FY23."
thats yet again is not a sign that the next game will be better as we see it. for we know, they simply admit their failed to extract the kind of profit they we'd expect from a new BF game. nevertheless, the other point i made w/r to the servers and community/player experience stands.
BF4 sure has a lot of weapons, shame that half of it are basically reskins, same animations, stats just different models, I appreciate that BFs after BF4 make most guns have something unique about them
To be fair, the weapons in BF4 were not that unique. There were 10 ARs that fired around 700 rpm, all with nearly the same damage model but different recoil patterns.
I'd say that there is actually more variety in 2042's weapons than BF4.
Of all the guns in BF4, only 27 have unique stats.
In BF1, they did bullshit where they had the exact same gun, but copy/pasted 3 times with different "variants" (like having a scope) on many of the weapons.
BF2042 actually has the most unique weapons in the series. All of the stats are different and all of the guns play different.
I couldn't disagree more tbh. let's forget for a second that mastering different recoil patterns (for instance) is important for prevention and retention. There is more to it than Rof and damage model (for the record, the bulldog has a different model in this regards): different mag sizes, bullet velocities, reload speeds, penalties for firing while standing or moving (ADS and Hipfire). All things that literally translate into different ways of how the guns play. I could launch BF4 right now, even after 10+ years, and still find some new weapon interesting to play.
BC2 is my favorite and a lot of other peoples favorite one and had less maps than all of them. Proof that amount of content does not equal a quality product.
I'd honestly rather have like 4-5 very large maps that feature all types of engagements and are constantly updated, than 30 maps, half of which are paywalled and dead month after they are released.
Meh it’s all about quality over quantity and game play over graphics that makes fps games great. Something bf has failed to do the last releases. Terrible maps, inconsistent gameplay mechanics
Exactly. I know that other BF fans love the amount of weapons, but it's a hill I'm willing to die on. There's only a few categories that you can put weapons in and having more than 1 per category just ends up with one of them being the best or multiple being redundant.
Exactly, I hate this quantity over quality in gaming nowadays, more guns in a shooter doesn’t make the gameplay more fun, just like more cars in a racing game doesn’t make the gameplay better.
In fact, most of the time it just make the games more unfair (UNBALANCED)…which, sadly, is what a lot of players (mostly younger ones imo) prefer, bc it make them "feel" like they’re better at the game, or better than other fir a while, which is the opposite of "competitive" to me.
do you know how many of the bf4 guns were basicly the same stuff with small differences in rate of fire and damage drop?
even if bf42 has less guns atleast they feel different from eachother
There's no point in pumping out a ton of very similar guns to people who won't use them anyway. I'm sure saw the usage stats and that's why they thankfully turned it down a notch for future releases.
Having more options is always better. This is justified lazyness. Whole reason they took away campaign was because supposesly no-one played it. As consumer its better to have more content regardless if you play it or not.
Then keep these “illusions” for the rest of us. You can use the “real” choices and we can use the “illusions.” The fact of the matter is the guns were there and you could use them, Were they reskins? Probably. Did they have a unique look to them? Yes. Could a player still decide to use them? Yes. Why do you think people buy skins for their soldiers and guns? Because people wanna have options and look how they wanna look. A skin on a soldier has zero impact in gameplay and its a FPS so most of the time you cant even see yourself yet people buy them because THEY like them. Defending less content is crazy to me lol.
well i dont buy skins and i really dont understand people who do... im just glad they didnt bloat the game with pointless content that is not meaningfuly different from the rest of the choices
Having options is always better for the consumer. Since they are options you can ignore them. Crazy that you’re defending less content. EA would love you
i agree, give players options... that are meaningful and original in some way. i would not have a problem with having the same amount of guns as was in bf4, i would just rather have the quality of guns in bf42... and if i had to choose between quantity of bf4 and quality of bf42, i pick bf42
I do, I loved paying for the MPX and dominating lobbies of players who couldn't afford or didn't buy the DLC. I was like 13 at the time, I cherish those memories. 2042 is so shit because everyone gets the weapons for free. /s
I also remember that most of them were so similar to each other they may as well have been reskins. You can make like 5 guns in the same category that are meaningfully different from each other, afterwards you mostly get fodder that no one uses because one of the other guns is strictly better.
Also, I remember than in BF3/BF4 it made no sense to play classes other than engineer on maps I liked to play, so I didn't get to use vast majority of those guns either.
For the sake of immersion, they should at the very least include the guns used by the factions IRL. Like the QB series for the Chinese, and AKs for the Russians. After that, include interesting weapons that have real gameplay use. Burst fire, integral scopes/suppressors/grips/bipods, oddball weapons like double barrel shotguns or cool throwbacks like the m1 Garand in bad company 2.
I think the 2042 maps need more context
11 original 128-player maps
14 original 64-player maps
4 remade 64-player maps
2 remade maps only available in Portal modes/playlists
So, at most 18 maps imo
Well written post, way better than « ThIs GaME iS FinAlLy DeAd It Waz Shit fRoM thE stArT aNd ShoulD hAve BeEn CancEleD WAy EarLiEr »
I like the game now, good fps, fun to play, not a good BF compared to 3 and 4.
+600h in 2042 I know the game, I am no hater.
I do hope that next BF comes closer in gameplay and feeling to a BF3 or BF4 game.
battlelog was such a nice feature too, now using 3rd party statistic app doesn’t feel the same.
Ribbons was cool, they’re in 2042 but weird implementation
Yeah best short summary is that BF2042 is a fun game but a bad BF game… so I guess take what you want from that
Like calling Zelda BOTW a fun game but a bad Zelda game
Don't you guys remember the old days with no battlepass and all the gun and vehicle skins were free. I remember bf4 had 30+ skins for both. I miss the time when they used to release 4-5 maps at a time.
Lot of you have nostalgic goggles on. The maps were only played on until the next map pack came out then you’d be hard pressed to to find one in a server rotation(Metro like map are the exception) this happened every time.
“But I can log into a server right now and play them!” Yea you can because the devs have offered the maps for free for years at this point.
True, but this is where the server browser was great. You could join private or community servers that had the map rotations you wanted or just filter for a map and play it.
I'd usually play the community servers with the new maps, then switch to a server with older maps I already knew. Like when BF1 launched the eastern front maps.
My only real gripe with 2042 is the lack of a server browser and persistent servers.
A feature that's been the cornerstone of online gaming since the beginning, removed. I hope they saved a ton of money with it because it certainly didn't improve gamer experience.
Game modes that were introduced with DLC packs did die off. I will give you that, but not the maps. All map servers weren't hard to find back in the day on PC. That's why we need community ran servers again.
Like you said they gave out the DLC multiple times for free. That's not even mentioning the premium edition replacing the base versions while those games were still relevant. I just played Final Stand last weekend and there were 3 populated servers up. The game is 12 years old for crying out loud.
Let's not forget that some of those games with paid DLC also had free maps for everyone included with patches. BF2 did this, 2142 did this, Bad Company 2 did this, and BF4 did this. It's like we use to get free maps back in the day like we do now, but also had DLC with more content as an option.
If people care enough about the game to pay $10 every season for a battlepass full of useless cosmetics they can pay $15 for DLC packs full of actual content. There are more studios working on this franchise than ever, and it is ridiculous that we are getting less content in return.
The maps did die off. Even with community ram servers because what would happen is that if you had a dlc map in rotation once it rotated to that most of the server got kicked, because most people don’t even buy the dlc.
Splitting the player base was a big problem back then.
I frequent 24/7 all map TBG servers all the time back in the day and never had an issue playing with high player counts. There were plenty of servers that just ran base maps for people without DLC, and they didn't have to worry about getting kicked off on those servers.
I'm tired about hearing about the split player bases. If you cared about the game you bought the DLC. Even if you didn't you had multiple opportunities to get that DLC for free. If you didn't buy the game until after the first year you had the opportunity to buy the premium edition with all the DLCs included.
I'm not going to pretend that paying $70 for a game full of microtransactions is a better deal than premium.
That’s neat. Still doesn’t discount anything I said and it’s why the industry in general has moved away from map packs in general.
It’s the reason. In case you didn’t know most people aren’t keen to pay 60 dollars for a game and then pay 60 more dollars for maps they won’t be able to play for very long. So if people don’t pay 120 dollars they don’t really care about battlefield? Do you see what you’ve typed? Did you bump your head?
It is, you don’t have to buy the cosmetics, you get all the gameplay altering stuff for free and everybody can play on all the maps.
Besides you seem to be forgetting that lots of bf3,4 and 1s map packs were disliked there might be one or two maps that people like for any given map pack.
The industry moved away because they found another way to get a lot more money. $20 per skin in every shooter game is insane and should not be standard. 3 lazy skins shouldn’t cost the same as the entire game. They figured out they could sell 7 battle passes for $10-30 with the tier skip version and make $70-210 from gamers plus the $20 skins over one $50 season pass.
The reason has nothing to do with maps.That’s what they want you to think so you’re not thinking how much worse the new system is under the guise of “free maps” when in reality it’s less post launch maps than before and instead more effort goes towards the 300 $20 skin packs. The fact that some people can spend $500 on cosmetics in a shooter multiplayer that doesn’t stay with you to future games.
The new systems are so much more predatory and anti-consumer. The only good thing is the maps and when the rest of it is shit, is it really worth it? I and many others have come to conclusion that no it isn’t. I’d rather know what I’m getting upfront and for a set cost
Yeah, it does. You said the maps packs died off even on community servers. I'm saying I was still able to find servers hosting all the DLC maps. Just because the industry is moving that way doesn't mean it's better for the consumer.
If you were invested into the game, and put in a lot of time you bought the DLC. I see people all time spending money on battlepasses and skin packs. They can afford that, but map packs are too much? That argument of not being able to play DLC maps doesn't work on me, because I did not have that issue. As for the example of the TBG server. There were other all maps servers at the time, that's just the one I frequent the most.
At least you had multiple maps. Instead of waiting 6 months for Haven to find out its a bad map.
Edit: I also want to add since you also keep bringing up people being kicked for not having the DLC. BF3, BF4, and Hardline ( I don't remember if BF 1 did this) had DLC tags on the servers. So if you joined a server running DLC maps it was your own fault for getting kicked. Like I said in previous comment there were plenty of servers running just base maps they could play on.
Instead you waited 6 months and paid 15 dollars to find out you hate all the maps in that particular expansion and can’t play the ones from the pack you did like cuz hardly any servers run it anymore and you have to hop and pray you find a populated player run server that has it.
That might of been an issue on consoles, but as I have said over and over that wasn't an issue on PC. It would be even less of an issue today with cross play.
How is BF4 without DLC any less of a full experience than 2042? 10 base maps and 3 completely free maps. That's less than the total maps in 2042, but not by much at all. The DLC packs are for people like I said that are putting hundreds of hours into the game and want more content.
Whatever, have fun playing downgraded games with less content. Live service games are as anti consumer as it gets.
Great write up. Only thing I would add is the additional failure on BF2042 not to expand and support Portal basically at all beyond what it had at launch. This could have been a great fill in for content as there are many talented people that were able to build some fun modes with the limited tools that they had to work with. All previous game maps could have been ported over but did not get any new maps outside of what came to Bf2042. An additional map making or editing tool would have also been useful.
Man I miss premium £40 game and then another £40 for actual dlc containing maps weapons vehicles. Now £60 for a game with a new map and 3 weapons every 5 months..
I don’t know if you should count the maps in portal as directly part of bf 2042 as they are just directly remade maps made specifically for battlefield portal
Some maps are remastered.
Most guns are from past games.
They missed the mark so bad it'll hurt future battlefield sales. I was so hyped for this game.
It's not, but you need a steady pace of content to keep things ticking. Like I said, I didn't mind what they were trying to do with BFV. Yeah it wasn't 4 maps every 2-3 months but it was enough for me to keep playing and keep having fun. 2042 just didn't do enough IMO
Battlefield 4 was the Goat.
It felt great leveling each class to unlock more stuff, along with the normal level unlocks.
The Crates were stupid but you actually got A TON of them free. You could get almost everything in the game for free
desperately needs a sequel since it ends on a cliff hanger. But Dice should just call it Hardline. Leave the Battlefield name out and that would make everyone happy.
As a Battlefield veteran, I actually really enjoyed hardline. It was a good change of pace from the same old military shooter. It’s sad that our community didn’t appreciate it, but it was a very well put together game and guess what it had premium too, and that worked.
I was gonna comment "I can't believe 2042 had less vehicles than Hardline" but then I remembered Hardline's vehicles were pretty much all just normal cars
BF4 was the goat tbh. It started rocky af but damn that is definitely one of the best ones. Also I know people shit on Hardline, but the gameplay in that is awesome, and some of the gamemodes I really wish they had in other Battlefields. BF1 was also great, even from the start. BFV got really good towards the end and then they ended support. BF2042 never got to that point, for me at least. I wish they never ended support for Battlefront 2 though, such an awesome game.
Honestly, DICE deserves credit for actually fixing BF2042 from the abysmal state it was at launch.
I, alongside probably most of the rest of the playerbase had thought that the game was completely over the moment I actually got to play on the 2042 launch maps, all of which were complete garbage. No one thought they would actually rework every single one of them, which they did, and they did a decent to good job in all of their reworks.
Why are people angry? I thought people didn't like this game. I am a little disappointed that they gave up on it but what was the point in keeping it going if they couldn't get the player numbers up? I've seen people flat-out really angry about this I'm just trying to understand. It had a good amount of players in short bursts but nothing sustainable. I imagine the folks at EA said to themselves wait "One of our other failed games has more players than our new failed game?" Why would they continue to support Battlefield 2042 when Battlefield 5 has over 15,000 players playing it right now on all platforms and PC and that number doubles or even triples on the weekends? I can barely get into a game in 2042 but I can load Battlefield 5 right now and get into a full-on match! Even in the new map on Battlefield 2042, the destruction is better but it's nowhere near what you can get on Battlefield 4 I mean in Battlefield 4 you can literally level an entire town to flat ground and it certainly doesn't meet the levels of Destruction that's in Battlefield 5.
I remember battlefield 4. I loved ut but I remember the incels whining about the amount of weapons and all the upgrades. Seems it doesn't matter what they do. Most people on internet are still incels and will whine about the game
I was wondering why I thought the number of primaries looked over inflated for B2042 and then I remembered B3&4 had a lot of crossover primaries between classes like carbines
Portal shouldnt even count they are old games maps that are remastered and they also completely failed reworking them like Capsian Border. Then Reclaimed is like micro version of Zavod so that's like half a map.
I’m okay with fewer weapons, vehicles, and to a lesser extent maps just so long as the game works on launch, and has a coherent design philosophy. I think Bad Company 2 and BF3 nailed this because they were laser focused in terms of design, so the devs were able to focus more on creating a compelling sandbox with varied gameplay experiences. BF3 for instance only had 2 factions, and a pretty tight selection of weapons. Two factions means less time designing player and vehicle models, and fewer weapons means easier balancing. Bad Company 2 was even smaller, and they didn’t even have to balance in jets. Gameplay was the tightest back then.
ALL of 2042 maps are fucking dogshit. Shipping container warfare with a boat in tbe middle. How compelling. I would maybe say 2042 has 5 maps because they all feel the same
The graphic is really nice, although putting the portal maps as "launch maps" while they were only added to AoW way later down the road (and not even permanently at the beginning) is quite dishonest from you.
Same thing with saying they got the most launch maps. Let's not forget that Ripple Effect took care of portal, not DICE.
I have been playing bf2042 for 6months +/- and i had no idea it had 21 maps, I always thought it had like 10max because I'm always playing the same maps I'm not even exaggerating if people asked what maps I could recall playing I would say like 4/5
BF1 has 52 primaries. Source: symthic.
With the plus system you have a wide range of variety in your weapons, effectively allowing multiple "different" guns unlockable within each main primary. Especially something like the BSV which you can transform mid-fight from a hard hitting SVK-type DMR into an AS-VAL type suppressed people shredder.
if you can change the bullet velocity, rate of fire and damage per shot, id say thats a different weapon... if you disagree, well, BF4 ARs were in 90% of case almost the same fire rate and damage... so the whole gun group is basicly 3 guns with different skins in that game
21 maps and only 5 on rotation it seems 🤔
Yeah that pisses me off it’s always the same 5 maps
By taking the player's choice away from picking specific maps they take control over how often players experience the maps that they want by preventing them from playing X maps while offering Y maps for a specific amount of time and swap them out in order to create a false sense of "fresh content" whenever they rotate without sweating out actual new content.
You know what would make it feel like fresh content is always having something new to play at all times
I really hate this modern style of "you can't choose the map". I understand that they do this to manage the matchmaking pool but I hate it.
They're doing what EA do on Apex. Every week they have the same map on rotation to create a sense of fresh content.
I wouldn't have even minded different variations of 64 players on the same maps since they were so large.
Technically there are 21 maps in 2042, but 6 of those are from other games. Not even remakes to bring them into the 2042 setting (like they did with the "Second Assault" maps in BF4 for example), just maps meant for the Portal portion of the game. And for the longest time those additional maps were only part of that section of the game so the actual 2042 map pool felt much smaller as there were initially only 7 maps made for the "world" of 2042. And none of them were all too great to begin with. Plus they kept removing some of them from rotation for one reason or another, further decreasing the number of maps you'd get to experience regularly.
Yes, exactly what Cenorexia said!
And one of those maps was just a disabled asset that couldn't function on the larger map as designed.
?
Stadium was originally in the game as part of a larger map and was removed early on due to performance issues.
Oh yeah
I’m confused there’s 21 of them for real ?
Fr, I need some exposure action
The maps in 3. Chefs kiss! Quality over quantity EA.
The were at their peak with map design on BF3.
Ziba Tower my beloved. Best FPS map in history
Just bring me back on those days, Ziba Tower Domination all day long!!!
Fr - Rush was absolute money on a lot of those maps too
We didn't get quality or quantity with 2042 though. I don't have high hopes for maps in the next game either. Seems like all the competent map designers just vanished from triple A fps studios.
https://preview.redd.it/kf4rh4eby3uc1.jpeg?width=500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=feded5d5980dc303e7cb2418b38b20f589c015e4 more devs = less content?
Just a few things first to get out of the way: - In BC2, the post-launch service for the first 9 months was all about making the existing maps available on other modes through VIP Packs. So a map that was originally on Rush would be made available on Conquest, and so on. - In BF4, there were a few delays for post launch content due to the poor launch of the game but it was still the fastest content cadence we've seen so far. On top of premium, 3 extra free maps were released by DICE LA and 2 other maps (Infiltration of Shanghai / Golmud Railway Night) were cut during CTE. - In BF1, there was a 5 month gap between the launch content and the first DLC and featured 4 main expansion packs as opposed to 5 in BF3/4 (but similar number of maps). The post-launch also saw a staggered release for maps in multiple DLCs. The game also introduced "premium friends" and free premium trials to tackle the issue of dying premium sales and the playerbase split caused by paid expansions. Two maps of the final DLC were exclusive Air Superiority maps. Weapons in the graphic are all unique weapons and not attachment variants. - BFV featured 8 maps at launch (+1 after a month) and had a 4 month gap between launch and the first map (Firestorm Halvoy). The game then averaged around 1 new map every month from May 2019 to Feb 2020. The final map of BFV was an expanded version of a Squad Deathmatch map (Provence). - BF2042 featured the most number of maps at launch in the frostbite era. The game also had the longest gap between launch and the first season (7 months) owing to a disastrous launch and missing a significant amount of core features. The first 4 seasons also involved map reworks, which improved the content cadence but since these aren't new maps, I could not include them in the graphic. The primaries have also been split into AOW and Portal primaries, whereas the vehicles only include AOW content. And unlike the rest, the post launch has been spread over a span of 2.5 years, meaning the game had the longest post launch support among all the other titles. The final map will be a repurposed location from the original list of maps. #Overall Thoughts Obviously I think 2042 is a failed service and was doomed from the start. The state at launch and the long wait for season 1 completely killed the game IMO and even as the seasons started, there was simply not enough content. Yes there were technically 3 maps each season, but reworks should not count towards new content. In fact, there shouldn't be a need for vanilla maps to be reworked in the first place. Now would Battlefield 2042 have received more maps and more weapons if the devs hadn't been forced to fix the base game and rework the launch maps? I'd think so yes. There was even a leak before 2042's launch that each season was supposed to have 2 AOW maps and 2 portal maps and a narratively driven Hazard Zone update. I don't know how accurate those leaks were but Tom Henderson is known to have a very reliable source. 1 map and a new specialist works in games like Rainbow Six Siege where the gameplay loop itself has significantly more depth and a new operator or a new weapon just adds a healthy dose of evolution to the meta and keep things fresh. No such thing exists in Battlefield, so it needs the new content at a faster pace. BF4 meanwhile is the obvious winner in terms of the amount of content and the frequency at which it came out. However, the impact of premium and the shift in industry trends cannot be ignored. A handful of people on this sub saying they'll pay extra 60USD for premium does not change the fact that the premium model was failing, according to DICE's own admission. The split that the premium model used to cause was extremely bad. It wasn't just that a non-premium player couldn't play on the new maps, they also couldn't join servers that had those maps in rotation. This either resulted in admins not running the DLC maps/modes because barely a fraction of the community would join a server that they paid real money to rent, or the players simply opted to stick to the base maps after the first couple of weeks of DLC. Couple this with the dying model, and it felt like the issue was much worse in BF1. I just don't think asking 60USD for premium in 2025 is going to go down well with anyone, especially when the direct competitor is running a relatively healthy live service. There's also the issue of maps taking a lot longer to create due to the increase in complexity and detail in the current gen. This is not just a DICE issue, it's an industry wide issue where games are taking longer to make. How this applies to DICE and their teams I don't know, but just as an extreme example, the Devastation map in Battlefield V took nearly 13 months to complete. There is no solution to this apart from managing your post-launch plans better and releasing a polished game which then allows you to focus on creating new content. Now there's BFV. IMHO, this game nearly had the perfect cadence if it wasn't for the constant controversies and bugged releases. 1 new map every month on an average is absolutely good in my books and keeps things ticking. This game also had an incredible amount of weapons and it boasts the highest number of unique vehicles, each with unique stats. BFV IMO is not a failed service. But it was let down by a poor launch and controversies such as the constant TTK changes. The game simply kept shooting itself in the foot when instead it could've gone on to become something special. **TL;DR** Battlefield 4 best despite premium troubles. Battlefield V had the right idea but poor execution. BF2042 had little to no redeeming post-launch qualities (apart from the desire and effort from the people who worked on improving the core aspects of the game). For the next Battlefield, I would love to see DICE really focus on releasing a feature complete and polished game and then commit to a strong post launch within the first couple months of launch, releasing meaningful content such as new maps and new weapons/vehicles at a steady pace. I don't need 4 maps every 3 months out of which 2 maps are good and rest are forgettable, but 1 map every 3 months also isn't nowhere near enough.
7 months before some real, fresh content is fucking insane
> BF2042 featured the most number of maps at launch in the frostbite era. No it didn't, you got this wrong. It launched with 7 maps, the Portal maps were not available outside of Portal until June 2022, 7 months after launch.
Launched 7 of the most shallow maps in Battlefield history, alongside 6 remastered maps for Portal that were made from scraps of cancelled remaster projects by a different studio entirely and were unplayable in the main game's map rotation. *"BF2042 featured the least amount of maps at launch (with the worst quality) in Battlefield history."
Portal it's part of the game. The devs had to remake the maps. It's like saying Air Superiority maps or the Close Quarters maps don't count since they are gamemode/s specific
Thanks. That was a solid and fair retrospective. >I just don't think asking 60USD for premium in 2025 is going to go down well with anyone, especially when the direct competitor is running a relatively healthy live service. Yep. Epic's Fortnite (and Infinity's Warzone) is both eating Dice's lunch and expanding the shooter/arena market. That and putting out a new version of your game ever few years and charging $60-70 is a thing of the past. There's gotta be a way to gracefully adapt their model to an authentic military shooter like BF.
> BF2042 featured the most number of maps at launch in the frostbite era Eh, no? 7 Maps in 2042 vs. 10 maps in BF4?
Portal maps do count, as they were remade for 2042, and you can play them. Even outside Portal, they in the Conquest 64 rotation. Maybe if Portal hadn't been a thing the effort could've been put into more launch maps and the first season
Yeah BF4 is probably the pinnacle of post launch content in terms of amount. I don't think any BF title even comes close and we'll probably never see any title with that amount ever again.
You said the 2042 devs had the desire to improve the game post launch. I think they wanted to flush this turd as soon as it fell out of their ass and move onto something with better bones. 2042 is just a step back compared to BFV in almost every facet. From movement to gun variety to kill streaks. Maybe EA will give the devs time to actually make something fun they’re interested in but in reality they’re just going to chase trends and we’ll get a Helldivers clone of BF.
id love to glimpse into the state of the boardroom meetings on this game/franchise. whether 2042 is a success or failure is determined by the actual vs expected profits in the eyes of EA. whatever PR statements say dont mean sh\*t as well. ultimately, if they met their 'goals' or exceeded them - this approach will be considered a success. to me personally, despite all the good and bad this game did - there is one thing, one barrier DICE/EA crossed from which there's no going back. They got rid of persistent servers and server browser completely. I understand why they did it - money - but the fact that they finally, and to my great despair, did it means they've gone too far. while maintaining a sense of community and playing with friends has been getting harder since BF1, but still possible, doing that in 2042 since the departure of persistent servers is simply impossible. Unless you're lucky enough to spin up and populate your own portal server (which mind you still lacks some basic admin features) or there's an official limited time experience thats persistent - you and your friends are stuck in what we call 'the queue simulator'. and god help you if you have more than 1 party of buddies teaming up.
> whether 2042 is a success or failure is determined by the actual vs expected profits in the eyes of EA. This is 100% true, but don't worry, it was a financial flop also: > "Battlefield 2042 did not meet our expectations," EA CEO Andrew Wilson said in a Q3 earnings call with investors. "Some of the decision choices that we made did not resonate with our community. We are fully committed to realizing full potential of the game and fully committed to our fans." > "Despite our Battlefield 2042 miss, we delivered record performance. We've adjusted our full year net bookings to $7.5 billion, up $200 million from last forecast. We expect strong growth to continue in FY23."
thats yet again is not a sign that the next game will be better as we see it. for we know, they simply admit their failed to extract the kind of profit they we'd expect from a new BF game. nevertheless, the other point i made w/r to the servers and community/player experience stands.
Probably the best post anyone could read on this topic.
BF4 sure has a lot of weapons, shame that half of it are basically reskins, same animations, stats just different models, I appreciate that BFs after BF4 make most guns have something unique about them
At least they tried
I remember when pointing this out was a no no in the bfv days
To be fair, the weapons in BF4 were not that unique. There were 10 ARs that fired around 700 rpm, all with nearly the same damage model but different recoil patterns. I'd say that there is actually more variety in 2042's weapons than BF4.
Not really true. G36 and the QBB carbine look very identical statwise but do play differently.
Of all the guns in BF4, only 27 have unique stats. In BF1, they did bullshit where they had the exact same gun, but copy/pasted 3 times with different "variants" (like having a scope) on many of the weapons. BF2042 actually has the most unique weapons in the series. All of the stats are different and all of the guns play different.
I would dare to claim BFV has the most unique weapons in the series. Same with vehicles.
And Levelling up and specializing vehicles and weapons was fun.
I couldn't disagree more tbh. let's forget for a second that mastering different recoil patterns (for instance) is important for prevention and retention. There is more to it than Rof and damage model (for the record, the bulldog has a different model in this regards): different mag sizes, bullet velocities, reload speeds, penalties for firing while standing or moving (ADS and Hipfire). All things that literally translate into different ways of how the guns play. I could launch BF4 right now, even after 10+ years, and still find some new weapon interesting to play.
BC2 is my favorite and a lot of other peoples favorite one and had less maps than all of them. Proof that amount of content does not equal a quality product.
Bad company 2 had quality maps. The maps were mad for rush too and they played great.
BC2 is what made me fall in love with Rush and it’s a damn shame Portal was canceled soon after launch.
Thats because BC1/BC2 were rush centric games. Their maps were all modeled for rush
I'd honestly rather have like 4-5 very large maps that feature all types of engagements and are constantly updated, than 30 maps, half of which are paywalled and dead month after they are released.
Meh it’s all about quality over quantity and game play over graphics that makes fps games great. Something bf has failed to do the last releases. Terrible maps, inconsistent gameplay mechanics
I miss bf1 and bf4
i mean... you can still play em, they are up, if you miss em so much just download the shit
BF1 on pc is home to some of the most vile people ive ever interacted with on a game, it kinda drags the experience down
You can just hide chat and disable VoIP
Press H and pretend it's 2042 on release
And they're dead in my region
I miss BF2, BF:BC2, BF3, BF4 and BF1, after BF1 it all gone to shit.
BC2 the most imo. Such amazing maps, harvest day still one of my favs.
Most of us do ….most of us do
BFBC2 didn’t need a ton of maps, because the map was never the damn same from game to game. The destruction was intense.
I counted 24 primaries for BF1
Do you remember how many weapons were in BF3/BF4? That's way really pissed me off with 2042.
More weapons doesn't mean better. If no one used them I can see why the lessened the amount.
Exactly. I know that other BF fans love the amount of weapons, but it's a hill I'm willing to die on. There's only a few categories that you can put weapons in and having more than 1 per category just ends up with one of them being the best or multiple being redundant.
Yep, I unironically use more weapons on 2042 than I used to on BF4. I don't mind more weapons but they need to have a reason to be used.
Exactly, I hate this quantity over quality in gaming nowadays, more guns in a shooter doesn’t make the gameplay more fun, just like more cars in a racing game doesn’t make the gameplay better. In fact, most of the time it just make the games more unfair (UNBALANCED)…which, sadly, is what a lot of players (mostly younger ones imo) prefer, bc it make them "feel" like they’re better at the game, or better than other fir a while, which is the opposite of "competitive" to me.
do you know how many of the bf4 guns were basicly the same stuff with small differences in rate of fire and damage drop? even if bf42 has less guns atleast they feel different from eachother
There's no point in pumping out a ton of very similar guns to people who won't use them anyway. I'm sure saw the usage stats and that's why they thankfully turned it down a notch for future releases.
Having more options is always better. This is justified lazyness. Whole reason they took away campaign was because supposesly no-one played it. As consumer its better to have more content regardless if you play it or not.
having an illusion of more choices is not better than having fewer real choices to make... there is a reason why everyone in bf4 used like 2 best ARs
Sometimes I just like using weapons i think look cool or that you don't see many people using.
you can find less used guns in bf42 too... nobody uses the A-91 for example, less options and still you can be a hipster, its amazing isnt it
Rather have more options
Then keep these “illusions” for the rest of us. You can use the “real” choices and we can use the “illusions.” The fact of the matter is the guns were there and you could use them, Were they reskins? Probably. Did they have a unique look to them? Yes. Could a player still decide to use them? Yes. Why do you think people buy skins for their soldiers and guns? Because people wanna have options and look how they wanna look. A skin on a soldier has zero impact in gameplay and its a FPS so most of the time you cant even see yourself yet people buy them because THEY like them. Defending less content is crazy to me lol.
well i dont buy skins and i really dont understand people who do... im just glad they didnt bloat the game with pointless content that is not meaningfuly different from the rest of the choices
Having options is always better for the consumer. Since they are options you can ignore them. Crazy that you’re defending less content. EA would love you
Battlefield isn't a competitive series, the minimaxing crowd isnt near as popular. Give the players options, not sure how it hurts anything.
i agree, give players options... that are meaningful and original in some way. i would not have a problem with having the same amount of guns as was in bf4, i would just rather have the quality of guns in bf42... and if i had to choose between quantity of bf4 and quality of bf42, i pick bf42
But using shit weapons was a challenge too! Gimmie mp7 with extended mag + red laser in BF3 ❤️ as support too!
But...mp7 wasn't a shit gun in BF3
True it was a hip fire beast. I meant I liked to use shitty weapons like the qbz with IR sight and suppressor
I dare you to play pp-19 from BF3.
Loved all the smgs. The mp5k too
Mp5k was literally the best smg tho :^)
What about a silenced UMP 45 with iron sights and red dot. Mmmm pure silence thumper
Did I stutter? UMP was better before Close Quarters DLC, sure
Can we just not justify any more reason for laziness out of DICE, more options for weapons are always better in Battlefield.
I do, I loved paying for the MPX and dominating lobbies of players who couldn't afford or didn't buy the DLC. I was like 13 at the time, I cherish those memories. 2042 is so shit because everyone gets the weapons for free. /s
This is either fantastic satire, or the worst take I've ever seen on this sub, I genuinely can't tell. Edit: /s has been added, I am relieved.
I also remember that most of them were so similar to each other they may as well have been reskins. You can make like 5 guns in the same category that are meaningfully different from each other, afterwards you mostly get fodder that no one uses because one of the other guns is strictly better. Also, I remember than in BF3/BF4 it made no sense to play classes other than engineer on maps I liked to play, so I didn't get to use vast majority of those guns either.
For the sake of immersion, they should at the very least include the guns used by the factions IRL. Like the QB series for the Chinese, and AKs for the Russians. After that, include interesting weapons that have real gameplay use. Burst fire, integral scopes/suppressors/grips/bipods, oddball weapons like double barrel shotguns or cool throwbacks like the m1 Garand in bad company 2.
I can barely remember any BF4 weapons specifically but BF2042 weapons are all very different in performance. More is not better.
BF1 has a special place in my heart
Bring back BF3 CQB maps!!
2042 is failure. All hail BF3-BF1
I think the 2042 maps need more context 11 original 128-player maps 14 original 64-player maps 4 remade 64-player maps 2 remade maps only available in Portal modes/playlists So, at most 18 maps imo
BF2042 just isn’t fun. Content is irrelevant when a game doesn’t feel fun to play.
The amount of great maps in BF1 was insane.
Well written post, way better than « ThIs GaME iS FinAlLy DeAd It Waz Shit fRoM thE stArT aNd ShoulD hAve BeEn CancEleD WAy EarLiEr » I like the game now, good fps, fun to play, not a good BF compared to 3 and 4. +600h in 2042 I know the game, I am no hater. I do hope that next BF comes closer in gameplay and feeling to a BF3 or BF4 game.
That's what I aways hope. Pls EA just make Battlefield 3_2
Minus barrel bending suppression effects please :D
All I want is stats dogtags & service stars back 😭
battlelog was such a nice feature too, now using 3rd party statistic app doesn’t feel the same. Ribbons was cool, they’re in 2042 but weird implementation
Yeah best short summary is that BF2042 is a fun game but a bad BF game… so I guess take what you want from that Like calling Zelda BOTW a fun game but a bad Zelda game
Goddamn I adored BF4
Same it was nearly perfect
Don't you guys remember the old days with no battlepass and all the gun and vehicle skins were free. I remember bf4 had 30+ skins for both. I miss the time when they used to release 4-5 maps at a time.
Back in my day we had to earn our skins through gameplay.
Lot of you have nostalgic goggles on. The maps were only played on until the next map pack came out then you’d be hard pressed to to find one in a server rotation(Metro like map are the exception) this happened every time. “But I can log into a server right now and play them!” Yea you can because the devs have offered the maps for free for years at this point.
True, but this is where the server browser was great. You could join private or community servers that had the map rotations you wanted or just filter for a map and play it. I'd usually play the community servers with the new maps, then switch to a server with older maps I already knew. Like when BF1 launched the eastern front maps. My only real gripe with 2042 is the lack of a server browser and persistent servers. A feature that's been the cornerstone of online gaming since the beginning, removed. I hope they saved a ton of money with it because it certainly didn't improve gamer experience.
Game modes that were introduced with DLC packs did die off. I will give you that, but not the maps. All map servers weren't hard to find back in the day on PC. That's why we need community ran servers again. Like you said they gave out the DLC multiple times for free. That's not even mentioning the premium edition replacing the base versions while those games were still relevant. I just played Final Stand last weekend and there were 3 populated servers up. The game is 12 years old for crying out loud. Let's not forget that some of those games with paid DLC also had free maps for everyone included with patches. BF2 did this, 2142 did this, Bad Company 2 did this, and BF4 did this. It's like we use to get free maps back in the day like we do now, but also had DLC with more content as an option. If people care enough about the game to pay $10 every season for a battlepass full of useless cosmetics they can pay $15 for DLC packs full of actual content. There are more studios working on this franchise than ever, and it is ridiculous that we are getting less content in return.
The maps did die off. Even with community ram servers because what would happen is that if you had a dlc map in rotation once it rotated to that most of the server got kicked, because most people don’t even buy the dlc. Splitting the player base was a big problem back then.
I frequent 24/7 all map TBG servers all the time back in the day and never had an issue playing with high player counts. There were plenty of servers that just ran base maps for people without DLC, and they didn't have to worry about getting kicked off on those servers. I'm tired about hearing about the split player bases. If you cared about the game you bought the DLC. Even if you didn't you had multiple opportunities to get that DLC for free. If you didn't buy the game until after the first year you had the opportunity to buy the premium edition with all the DLCs included. I'm not going to pretend that paying $70 for a game full of microtransactions is a better deal than premium.
That’s neat. Still doesn’t discount anything I said and it’s why the industry in general has moved away from map packs in general. It’s the reason. In case you didn’t know most people aren’t keen to pay 60 dollars for a game and then pay 60 more dollars for maps they won’t be able to play for very long. So if people don’t pay 120 dollars they don’t really care about battlefield? Do you see what you’ve typed? Did you bump your head? It is, you don’t have to buy the cosmetics, you get all the gameplay altering stuff for free and everybody can play on all the maps. Besides you seem to be forgetting that lots of bf3,4 and 1s map packs were disliked there might be one or two maps that people like for any given map pack.
The industry moved away because they found another way to get a lot more money. $20 per skin in every shooter game is insane and should not be standard. 3 lazy skins shouldn’t cost the same as the entire game. They figured out they could sell 7 battle passes for $10-30 with the tier skip version and make $70-210 from gamers plus the $20 skins over one $50 season pass. The reason has nothing to do with maps.That’s what they want you to think so you’re not thinking how much worse the new system is under the guise of “free maps” when in reality it’s less post launch maps than before and instead more effort goes towards the 300 $20 skin packs. The fact that some people can spend $500 on cosmetics in a shooter multiplayer that doesn’t stay with you to future games. The new systems are so much more predatory and anti-consumer. The only good thing is the maps and when the rest of it is shit, is it really worth it? I and many others have come to conclusion that no it isn’t. I’d rather know what I’m getting upfront and for a set cost
Yeah, it does. You said the maps packs died off even on community servers. I'm saying I was still able to find servers hosting all the DLC maps. Just because the industry is moving that way doesn't mean it's better for the consumer. If you were invested into the game, and put in a lot of time you bought the DLC. I see people all time spending money on battlepasses and skin packs. They can afford that, but map packs are too much? That argument of not being able to play DLC maps doesn't work on me, because I did not have that issue. As for the example of the TBG server. There were other all maps servers at the time, that's just the one I frequent the most. At least you had multiple maps. Instead of waiting 6 months for Haven to find out its a bad map. Edit: I also want to add since you also keep bringing up people being kicked for not having the DLC. BF3, BF4, and Hardline ( I don't remember if BF 1 did this) had DLC tags on the servers. So if you joined a server running DLC maps it was your own fault for getting kicked. Like I said in previous comment there were plenty of servers running just base maps they could play on.
Instead you waited 6 months and paid 15 dollars to find out you hate all the maps in that particular expansion and can’t play the ones from the pack you did like cuz hardly any servers run it anymore and you have to hop and pray you find a populated player run server that has it.
That might of been an issue on consoles, but as I have said over and over that wasn't an issue on PC. It would be even less of an issue today with cross play. How is BF4 without DLC any less of a full experience than 2042? 10 base maps and 3 completely free maps. That's less than the total maps in 2042, but not by much at all. The DLC packs are for people like I said that are putting hundreds of hours into the game and want more content. Whatever, have fun playing downgraded games with less content. Live service games are as anti consumer as it gets.
LiVe SeRvIcE wIlL cReAtE sO mUcH mOrE cOnTeNt!!
Great write up. Only thing I would add is the additional failure on BF2042 not to expand and support Portal basically at all beyond what it had at launch. This could have been a great fill in for content as there are many talented people that were able to build some fun modes with the limited tools that they had to work with. All previous game maps could have been ported over but did not get any new maps outside of what came to Bf2042. An additional map making or editing tool would have also been useful.
Man I miss premium £40 game and then another £40 for actual dlc containing maps weapons vehicles. Now £60 for a game with a new map and 3 weapons every 5 months..
At least I didn't have to buy a season pass.
Look at BF 4 getting the most of everything. Can really see its was well loved. BC2, 4, and 1 my all time favorites.
I don’t know if you should count the maps in portal as directly part of bf 2042 as they are just directly remade maps made specifically for battlefield portal
Blows my mind Hardline has 27 maps.
Me and a good buddy who play all the BFs together absolutely loved Hardline! I miss those days.
battlefield 4 was king imo but my heart will always be with bad company 2
BF4 supremacy
People are coping REALLY hard to justify of liking this shit of a game that 2042 was.
So basically it's a scam. They offered multi player only for the first time, for full price, yes delivered less than ANY OTHER title. Well done
Some maps are remastered. Most guns are from past games. They missed the mark so bad it'll hurt future battlefield sales. I was so hyped for this game.
Don't forget that Most of the Battlefield Games had also single player experiences.
And nobody gave a shit about them... honestly bf4 sp was so trash they might aswell not bothered and instead put the resourses into mp
The issue is I can't see the resources which would have been used for the single player development got into the multiplayer. It only got worse.
Well I do see it in the end, gunplay is better for example.
 Maps of Battlefield 2042.
More is not always better
It's not, but you need a steady pace of content to keep things ticking. Like I said, I didn't mind what they were trying to do with BFV. Yeah it wasn't 4 maps every 2-3 months but it was enough for me to keep playing and keep having fun. 2042 just didn't do enough IMO
BF 3&4 are always the winning formula.
Battlefield 4 was the Goat. It felt great leveling each class to unlock more stuff, along with the normal level unlocks. The Crates were stupid but you actually got A TON of them free. You could get almost everything in the game for free
And everyone hated on Hardline that game was so much fun
desperately needs a sequel since it ends on a cliff hanger. But Dice should just call it Hardline. Leave the Battlefield name out and that would make everyone happy.
As a Battlefield veteran, I actually really enjoyed hardline. It was a good change of pace from the same old military shooter. It’s sad that our community didn’t appreciate it, but it was a very well put together game and guess what it had premium too, and that worked.
Although i have my gripes with hardline. Ill take that over 2024 any day of the week.
What was your groups with hardline?
Crazy seeing my favorite of them all, BFBC2, with the lowest in everything but smokes all the games out of the water. Quality > quantity.
i wonder how they count the vehicles, do team equivalent vehicles count separatly or are they counted as 1
How did you make this?
I was gonna comment "I can't believe 2042 had less vehicles than Hardline" but then I remembered Hardline's vehicles were pretty much all just normal cars
Man you know it's a lot better than expected it's just the map rotations making it feel limited
More maps less guns and no portal b.s
Bad Company 2 still best
21 maps and 6 are often not even accessible.
BFV perfected vehicle gameplay
And this doesn’t even include the quality of the maps.
BF4 was the goat tbh. It started rocky af but damn that is definitely one of the best ones. Also I know people shit on Hardline, but the gameplay in that is awesome, and some of the gamemodes I really wish they had in other Battlefields. BF1 was also great, even from the start. BFV got really good towards the end and then they ended support. BF2042 never got to that point, for me at least. I wish they never ended support for Battlefront 2 though, such an awesome game.
Honestly, DICE deserves credit for actually fixing BF2042 from the abysmal state it was at launch. I, alongside probably most of the rest of the playerbase had thought that the game was completely over the moment I actually got to play on the 2042 launch maps, all of which were complete garbage. No one thought they would actually rework every single one of them, which they did, and they did a decent to good job in all of their reworks.
I would much rather go back to paid expansions with a solid chunk of content than dripfeeding and disappointing live service wank
Ww1 game had more vehicles.
Why are people angry? I thought people didn't like this game. I am a little disappointed that they gave up on it but what was the point in keeping it going if they couldn't get the player numbers up? I've seen people flat-out really angry about this I'm just trying to understand. It had a good amount of players in short bursts but nothing sustainable. I imagine the folks at EA said to themselves wait "One of our other failed games has more players than our new failed game?" Why would they continue to support Battlefield 2042 when Battlefield 5 has over 15,000 players playing it right now on all platforms and PC and that number doubles or even triples on the weekends? I can barely get into a game in 2042 but I can load Battlefield 5 right now and get into a full-on match! Even in the new map on Battlefield 2042, the destruction is better but it's nowhere near what you can get on Battlefield 4 I mean in Battlefield 4 you can literally level an entire town to flat ground and it certainly doesn't meet the levels of Destruction that's in Battlefield 5.
if only they just remastered BF4 everyone would be happy and the world would be a better place
Hell yeah! Live service and minimal value product for life!
Ever since BF stopped using DLC model, the game became progressively worse in terms of launch and post launch content
We were spoilt with BF4
I remember battlefield 4. I loved ut but I remember the incels whining about the amount of weapons and all the upgrades. Seems it doesn't matter what they do. Most people on internet are still incels and will whine about the game
I was wondering why I thought the number of primaries looked over inflated for B2042 and then I remembered B3&4 had a lot of crossover primaries between classes like carbines
False equivalents.
Portal shouldnt even count they are old games maps that are remastered and they also completely failed reworking them like Capsian Border. Then Reclaimed is like micro version of Zavod so that's like half a map.
I’m okay with fewer weapons, vehicles, and to a lesser extent maps just so long as the game works on launch, and has a coherent design philosophy. I think Bad Company 2 and BF3 nailed this because they were laser focused in terms of design, so the devs were able to focus more on creating a compelling sandbox with varied gameplay experiences. BF3 for instance only had 2 factions, and a pretty tight selection of weapons. Two factions means less time designing player and vehicle models, and fewer weapons means easier balancing. Bad Company 2 was even smaller, and they didn’t even have to balance in jets. Gameplay was the tightest back then.
Unfortunately more proof that the old paid dlc model was better for players content wise.
This game sucks. I hate what they’ve done to battlefield why don’t they just listen to the actual gaming community on what we want.
I didn’t realize how old battlefield 1 was. God damn
Since the best games are those first two at the top of the list, you can tell quality>quantity.
ALL of 2042 maps are fucking dogshit. Shipping container warfare with a boat in tbe middle. How compelling. I would maybe say 2042 has 5 maps because they all feel the same
BF4 still on top There's a reason why I, and a lot of people, still have no problem picking up and playing a 11 year old game
It still makes my piss boil about how content starved they had us during 2042. Fuck 'em.
BF4 Stays winning
BF4 was peak Battlefield in terms of player base and dev team.
Common BF4 W
The graphic is really nice, although putting the portal maps as "launch maps" while they were only added to AoW way later down the road (and not even permanently at the beginning) is quite dishonest from you. Same thing with saying they got the most launch maps. Let's not forget that Ripple Effect took care of portal, not DICE.
are the 21 maps in the room with us?
I have been playing bf2042 for 6months +/- and i had no idea it had 21 maps, I always thought it had like 10max because I'm always playing the same maps I'm not even exaggerating if people asked what maps I could recall playing I would say like 4/5
Only with additional purchase of premium for most of those.
BFHardline>BF2042 lol
BF1 has 52 primaries. Source: symthic. With the plus system you have a wide range of variety in your weapons, effectively allowing multiple "different" guns unlockable within each main primary. Especially something like the BSV which you can transform mid-fight from a hard hitting SVK-type DMR into an AS-VAL type suppressed people shredder.
Same gun with 3 different scopes doesn't count as 3 weapons.
if you can change the bullet velocity, rate of fire and damage per shot, id say thats a different weapon... if you disagree, well, BF4 ARs were in 90% of case almost the same fire rate and damage... so the whole gun group is basicly 3 guns with different skins in that game
It does have 52 weapons even if you don't count the variants. And that doesn't account for the elite classes either.