WHY BATTLEFIELD 2042 GETTING SO MUCH HATE?

Rate this post

 “Battlefield 2042,”

Battlefield 2042 as you probably noticed, has been hitting the news quite a bit recently because of negative reviews, lots of glitches and strange bugs going viral, and user reviews on websites like Steam and Metacritic, absolutely plummeting rock bottom levels.

If you interested then read more here

Now, in a year of quite a few AAA game disappointments and just lots of messy releases, what makes the “Battlefield” one so particular? Why is “Battlefield 2042” getting so much hate? Like we try to do sometimes with big games and big controversies, let’s cut past all of the epic rants and leave that to the professionals, and let’s just dive into it all, see what happened, and what maybe we can learn.

So, first things first, let’s at least recap how we personally felt about the game here. If you watched our “Before You Buy” review video on the game, you’ll know that we found it to be a cool “Battlefield” game on paper, but not so much in the execution. It felt unfinished, like it needed more time in the oven, that phrase that we’re now overusing, but we’re sticking with it. Not only was it just technically messy and glitchy, which we’ll get more into in a bit, it also just had a ton of lag, server issues, and because of that, poor hit registering, where it feels like your gunshots don’t do anything, and a lot of rubber banding.

The technical issues were one part of the problem. The other was just the gameplay itself. While we like the maps, the game is structured around an operator system where you choose one of a few distinct characters. It all just felt kind of phoned in. Three wasn’t a lot of excitement or life to them. There weren’t a ton of guns, and all of it just didn’t feel very cool or “Battlefield,” despite the flashy presentation over it all. Plus, the guns, the sound effects, and just a bunch of missing “Battlefield” things like a scoreboard and the widespread destruction, stuff like that, it just made it all feel not quite right.

Now, again, that’s just us. Dive into Steam’s current user reviews sitting at mostly negative, and you’ll find way more cries for help and the disappointment of so many missing features. Fewer game modes, drastically in some spots, no persistent lobbies, no standard style server browser for the mains, no global leaderboards, custom stuff like custom emblems and the like, just less of a scoring system overall, almost no HUD customization, and just a lot less info in everything at a glance on screen. There are just so many little things down to small differences in infantry gameplay and medic stuff, to high-level stuff, that it’s just staggering overall. And what hurt the most, and what we mentioned in our video, is that we paid extra, we bought into that big special edition that gave you early access to the game. And even though it was a few days earlier and okay, they could have a day one patch, the game was still such a mess, to the point where we were getting bugs where once we died and were down, we were stuck and we couldn’t respawn and the camera was just stuck on our dead character for an entire match. And it didn’t happen to just us, it happened to other people in our game.

Definitely shouldn’t happen. And it shouldn’t happen to the excited fans who are paying up extra to access the game early. Now, it all can feel disappointing to many because of the promises made. Now, some people are just over these games and have been since, I don’t know, everybody has a different one.

“Battlefield 4,” maybe you checked out. “Battlefield 1.” “Battlefield V” was when you bailed. Everyone is different. But for the people who stuck around with all the “Battlefield” games, the premise of “2042” sounded pretty cool and ambitious, just a massive multiplayer-only experience. More players, bigger maps, all of your favorite game modes, all the marketing emphasize those fan moments, those crazy over the top moments that “Battlefield” players create like jumping out of a jet, and shooting a rocket launcher out of a helicopter and doing crazy dumb stuff. All of that sounded great. Plus, the Portal mode that allowed you to create whatever wild modes you want with whatever maps and weapons and modes from “Battlefield’s” history, going back to the old World War II days, to “Battlefield 3,” and even “Bad Company.” And they ditched a campaign entirely, which led to a lot of arguments online. But with them going all multiplayer, surely you’d think that by still charging full price they’d go really hard into finely perfecting and bringing the best multiplayer they could, right? Like the pinnacle “Battlefield” game.

Well, not so much. Or at least, not yet. Obviously, that’s why we’re here talking about this. That potential was pretty exciting. And I think that part of the harsh reaction to this is that some people really bought into that excitement. Not shaming them, is what it is, you know? But the game certainly isn’t there yet. And yet they still put it out in such a rough state and asked for money, and it’s a shame.

Especially because like… Man, have you seen some of these glitches? (laughs) Apparently, a lot of the buildings and skyscrapers don’t even have collision sometimes, meaning you can just drive through them. Players fly across the map when getting shot, vehicles drop through the floor.

Every glitch, you name it, it’s probably here. And it’s crazy because “Battlefield” games almost always launch in at least somewhat of a rough state, one way or another. We’ve talked about this in the past, since at least “4,” I think? They always have the funniest glitches, but it seems like, at this point, it may have been the perfect storm for players. With “Battlefield 2042,” it’s really getting old, and players’ patients seems to be waning. The last two years have had some great games, but it has also seen some industry-shaking mistakes as well. And, at this, point it’s almost like the “Battlefields” and the “Call of Duties,” with all their money and all their resources, they should all really have their together because they’re the top dogs, right? But “Battlefield has ended up like any other rushed game in an unfortunate state, and I think that’s why it might sting hardest for the fans that stuck around. Not to mention, it’s worth pointing out too, just in terms of online discourse and rampant hate, it’s still published by EA, which, of course, has that reputation as being the most hated game company for players, for various reasons. Now, in my research for this video, and by research, I mean the not the actual word research, which is abused, I literally just played the game some more and looked around at what people were saying, I was surprised, somewhat, by what I found.

A lot of people are happy to say they got a refund, which, hell yeah, man, good for you, power to the consumer. But a surprising theme I’ve seen from some comments is that it’s not quite there yet and it’ll be good in a few months. And I’ll even admit, in my other video, and with some games, I suggested that fans who were excited maybe wait and hold off. But it also made me stop and think, “Why wait? “How many times “are we going to go through this whole thing?” At this point, it feels like fans are conditioned to wait for a better game, with issues in previous “Battlefield” games before it, you know? Yes, a better game can come out on the other side of this, which just one more good game in the world is still a net positive for the universe if you ask me. But in this gaming hobby where there are so, so many other games, multiplayer or otherwise, whatever they are, begging for your time and actively working for it, why continue to settle on this? I think what some of the bigger companies need to learn, especially with the ones that churn out games a lot, they need to realize that delays are good. Hold off, dude.

Ubisoft has stopped putting out “Assassin’s Creed” games every year. “Halo Infinite” which, of course, was delayed a whole year and seemingly, is looking better. More companies need to learn from that. Just take your time. The “Battlefield” fans will wait, they’ll get excited. Those fans that stick around and say, “Oh, it’ll get better. It’s fine.” Is it diehard, for better or worse, loyalty to the franchise? Is it the fact that you already invested 60 or $70? I don’t know. But we just wanted to point out our observations here. It’s a little interesting where we’ve ended up.

Dice and “Battlefield” have acknowledged it sort of by outlining their roadmap and have promised to fix and balance a lot of stuff. And with the resources they have, they likely will. But is the damage already done? There’s always a comeback story like I said, but this might just be another situation where tensions have come to a boiling point with EA. “Star Wars Battlefront II” was like the pinnacle of everyone being fed up with microtransactions and companies pushing it way too far after quite a few years, and “Battlefront” kind of fell on the sword, so to speak, metaphorically. And now with “Battlefield 2042,” nobody is concerned about microtransactions this time, it’s all about quality. And that quality stings even more after so many other games releasing rushed, like “Cyberpunk 2077.”

Then, on the other hand, like I mentioned earlier, with how we felt about the game, it might also just be a little bit of a case of “Battlefield” losing its identity a little bit with each release. Let’s be honest, everybody just wants a new “Bad Company,” right? At the very least, what we can learn here is kind of what I said before, where there are so many other games begging for your time and doing a good job asking for your time and your money or whatever else, that maybe some of the bigger publishers should realize that they should take a step back and delay games more, hold off. It’s like ripping a Band-Aid off, once you delay a game, everyone’s like, “Ah!” and then whatever, right? What I do like about a game in a series messing itself up, or really crapping the bed… And this might sound weird, but it’s me being my disgustingly optimistic self.

Playing a bad game in a series, like say maybe you don’t like “Battlefield 2042,” what it could actually do is highlight and really help you realize what you do love about the “Battlefield” games, what you want from it as a consumer, what you look for in fun factor, why you came to the series to begin with. So, at the very least, a failure of a game, or a game with issues, can help you realize why you loved the damn thing in the first place.

Obviously, that’s not a justification to go buy the game or anything, my goodness. But just a little tiny silver lining. That’s all I could do here. But I wanna hear from you guys in the comments what you think about “Battlefield 2042.” Again, if you wanna see our full thoughts, and us having a lot of issues with the game, go to our “Before You Buy.” But we’d love to hear a conversation down here in the comments. If you are a “Battlefield” fan, what specifically do you need? Are you a “Battlefield” fan that has stepped away?

Do you keep trying with every release? I get it. I do it with some game series. But, whoever you are, let’s talk down in the comments. Let us know anything you want about “Battlefield 2042,” and maybe what they should do with the next game or what they should bring back, like “Bad Company.” Thank you for being civil in these discussions. And if you had a good time here, clicking the like button’s all you gotta do it. It legit helps us out, so thank you.

Homepage

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.