Dear first-person shooter fans

This is very disappointing news for this game, when I was browsing through Steam store and Metacritic, then when I checked the user reception for all versions, I saw there are a lot of unsatisfying feedbacks from the customers for several reasons including bugs.

Oh well, I was really anticipating this game to get good feedback prior to its launch, luckily I avoided it but hopefully, it will be fixed when the patches get released a couple of months later.

Here is one of the articles about this game that I've found:

Battlefield 2042 immediately has thousands of negative reviews on Steam | PC Gamer

So for those who played it (no matter on which platform), I would like to see you share your experience with this.

On top of all the complaints. I'm seeing some people saying that that are also getting also getting banned due to having mouse or keyboard software running in the background. Among the shooters coming out during the end of the year I was looking forward to this one since its now offering full bot matches for when I don't have the time or desire to play a full match with others. But all the negative press have made it radioactive.

Playing that beta it felt like such an empty game, just constantly running around each sector wonder where the hell I was even going. Then gunfights happened and they felt like the same hollow style of shooting in the previous modern-style Battlefield games and I was just turned off. Seems like most players are having the same problems they had in the beta in the current release version so I don't even know what EA are thinking at this point since Battlefield V had basically the same problem to my knowledge.

@merxworx01: Oh no, I cannot believe that this game falsely bans users for running keyboard and mouse software that utilizes RGB or something.

@bicycleham: I was expecting DICE to redeem themselves by fixing the mistakes from the previous installments of the Battlefield franchise but they didn't do it at all.

Word around the bush was this was supposed to be an exclusively battle royale based Battlefield game until if ended up getting retooled to what it is now. I guess late in development they must've realized Apex was EA's flagship BR and there wasn't really much of a point trying to cannibalize their own user base so they scrapped the idea and went with the Escape from Tarkov esque Hazard Zone mode along with Portal and Standard Battlefield.

It's mostly due to bugs and other problems that need fixing (like adding a scoreboard), which will be remedied in time, and people are right to give bad reviews for that because it's pretty freaking bad, but the content of the game itself just doesn't seem that appealing to me either.
The teaser suggested "future" so i was thinking mechs and space ships and SOMETHING, ANYTHING different from what they've been doing for the last decade, but it's just BF3 with some gadgets and a higher player count, the maps are bigger so you have to run further, destruction and fidelity have been reduced to support it, the removal of classes and introduction of dorky characters just seems aimed at monetisation which is the most boring reason ever, you can't tell me they added this guy because they wanted to.

The worst thing for me is that the game released in this state and doesn't have any single player modes, despite having the entire team working on the multiplayer the changes and additions are still super basic, they even added the Portal mode where they reuse assets from the previous games to add more content, which they had to disable progression for because of exploits, Portal is a neat idea and they should have probably made the entire game around that concept to make a big crazy and weird Battlefield, but that would require them to take a risk and it's currently just a side mode.
If you want bigger Battlefield once they've fixed it it should be right up your alley, i'm just looking for something that either strips everything back to what made BF so amazing in the first place or a new innovation that justifies taking the franchise in a new direction, and this isn't it.

@cikame: It's true, Battlefield 2042 also pretty much ruined the franchise.

TL;DR I think 2042 has the potential to be better than 4 but its going to take some time. As much hate as 2042 is getting in reviews, I'm enjoying it. I like Portal because I can set up a bot match with BF3 guns and classes on the new 2042 maps or run an old Rush map from BC2 with the new 2042 weapons/classes. I've already seen some cool shit people have made in Portal and look forward to more! I've seen several posts on reddit from people saying things like "I'm a day 1 portal player" and I am sitting there nodding and going to Portal first before trying to run a 2042 match at all- for all the things that they did not put into 2042, just the fact they put Portal in at all is a big deal because these games have been so un-moddable for so long.

I will also say that as frustrating as it is to NOT have a traditional scoreboard when you hit TAB, I think it actually has good knock-on effects of teams generally being balanced numerically- maybe not matchmade correctly- but noone can tell because they can't look at a scoreboard and dip out because they don't like how many high level people they see on the board. Also, I feel people are less shitty in chat when they aren't checking a scoreboard that either shows how sick your K/D ratio is or how much you're getting pummelled by a bunch of no-lifers. This new board just shows how good your squad is doing compared to all other squads and that's fine by me!

Some people have decided that 2042 doesnt have a server browser. This is true for proper 2042 matchmade ranked play (aka you get xp towards unlocking the progression in 2042) but theres still a browser in Portal where anyone can host up whatever maps/rulesets they can dream up and I would argue that this is what I would go to the server browser to find in the older games anyway. If I wanted a ranked game with XP gains I want it all standardized and everyone playing by the same rules, not some server where 1 team has literal advantages baked into how the server was set up.

I think they successfully pulled off the 128 player count which could just as easily have fallen flat on its face. Memba MAG? The maps so far feel big and even with 100+ characters running around I still feel like I can get kills and not just getting jumped all the time. I feel like Conquest Large actually does the Large part correctly again.

I think a lot of the negative reviews on Steam are coming from 2 groups. Group 1: People still in love with BF4. 4 still has a ton of maps including remastered ones from 3 and '42, so they see less maps and less features because the scoreboard isnt like BF4, no commander, no this no that, plus if you're on an older PC the performance isn't as good as 4. Cherry on the top is a fresh progression system where they have to get 100 kills to unlock all the scopes and shit they already grinded for in 4.
And group 2 are the people who pre-ordered with unrealistic expectations that this Battlefield game was going to be better than 4 and 5 right out of the gate.

Here are some Portal "Experiences" I've made so far. You can make your server 128 on PC but if you set your overall player count higher than 64 you can't add bots.

If it was $30, then I would consider it just for portal. Right now, after that beta, I'll patiently wait for a sale. That's coming from someone who bought nearly all the content in BF3-BF1.

Having been throught numerous Battlefield releases 2042 hasn't been that bad definitely not as smooth as BF1 but nowhere near BF4.

Dice biggest failing is they don't interate and always seem to start from scratch simple things like UI elements won't transistion across from game to game.

2042 is pretty buggy the hit reg is pretty inconsistent just moving around can feel jittery. The UI is missing basic features from past titles and the game isn't very rewarding with points like past titles.

When Dice showed 2042 for the fist time everyone was expecting BF4.5 but 2042 isn't that. The addition of 128p and much bigger maps means not only does it take longer to learn the maps but people will have to change/learn how they play Battlefield, with the specialists as well its a massive change.

I also think Portal while neat is a mistake its obviously taken a lot of effort creating three Battelfields games under one umbrella each with unique character models, guns and gadets while recreating the feeling of playing these past games. That time would have been much better spent polishing 2042 and adding more guns etc.

People seem to forget that every Battlefield launch in the last 10 years has been disastrous. Battlefield 4 is fondly remembered now, but it was completely broken for a year, to the point that EA had to apologize for the state of the game (and got a place in Giant Bomb's 2013 GOTY awards in the "Please Stop" category - "Games That Require Post-Launch Apologies").

@fisk0: I played 4 at launch, and like 2042, never encountered any technical issues the game was plagued by. Maybe I am forgetting, but I don't remember there being anything wrong with 4 as a battlefield game itself.

I think the difference here is there are fundamental issues with the design of the game, that frankly, will be hard to fix without MAJOR effort and a potential re-release down the road.

I know everyone has different things they do/don't want, but for me this is just a bad Battlefield game. This is really the only one I have actively disliked aside from maybe SORT of not liking Hardline(I was in college though and just didn't have time nor any real draw to it, and 4 was still great).

If you wanna get deep into conspiracies, with what has come out from behind the scenes as well as theories about it's original form and the existence of Portal....this game was never designed to be well received by Battlefield fans, at least not at the executive level.

Portal was CLEARLY meant to be a disaster control because the main game wasn't going to be traditional Battlefield. Devs managed to coral the crazy ideas into what we got, but it ended up still not being good enough and Portal isn't capable of managing this level of dissatisfaction.

Believe me, I am the LAST person to yell into the void when I "don't get my way" when it comes to video games and time and again aggressively roll my eyes when "fans" don't like something. At the end of the day what comes first is what the devs WANT to make, not what you think they should make.

However, in this case, clearly neither group got what they want.

@reap3r160: BF4 netcode was beyond busted that effected everyone playing the game you'd take damage well after the fact often around corners and behind cover due to the servers running a very low tickrate, the problem was experienced by everyone in every game mode. BF4 also was also plagued with bloat, loot boxes and general feature creep.

Its not unsual for development to radically shift early in production, BF2042 maybe starting out as a Battle Royal isn't proof of anything.

Though I would not be surprised if managment at Dice isn't exactly plain sailing but the tweet in the article sourced is referencing BF1, which is by far EA/Dice most succesful Battlefield title and the one released in the best state of any previous BF game to date.

Battlefield titles have often been very different from one another its not unsual for fans to be unhappy with the new direction, and we still don't know what casual people think because its too early atm.

I also find it very hard to believe Portal exisist because Dice thought they were making an unpopular game or a radical departure for the series because Bad Company and Battlefield 3 already were that, especially considering the last game BFV was deeply unpopular in itself.

(My experience is limited to the technical alpha, the public beta, and the 10-hour trial you get from Xbox PC GamePass.)

As the years go by... I become more and more confident in declaring that maybe DICE is bad at making a video game.

That said, I seem to be more positive in my time with BF2042 than the rest of the internet chatter. With the actual release, I've spent all of my 10-hour trial messing around with the pseudo-single player offering of playing the All-Out Warfare mode with bots. Thankfully, you can still get rank experience points and progression through that mode. It makes it really easy to unlock some of the early weapon attachments and vehicle unlocks! I've been having an alright time doing that.

Even though I've had a good time playing by myself, I can't help but be disappointed with the full release. Earlier in the year, the EA investor call chatter and PR said that BF2042 was further along/ahead of schedule, that they were pulling in Criterion from the next Need for Speed game to help the game over the finish line, et cetra et cetra. And now with the full release, it's easy to see that the most cynical interpretation of those declarations came true. Maybe I was the fool for hoping much from both EA and DICE, but after the kerfuffle surrounding both Star Wars Battlefront 2 and Battlefield V, I hoped that DICE would have their shit together for Battlefield 2042.

Despite the bummer launch, I still think BF2042 has a chance. Or at least I would like it to have the same chance that BF4 got. Something that BFV didn't seem to have gotten. As much as it is a monetization ploy, the pick-whatever nature of the Specialist system I find interesting. Battlefield is still probably the only game to have the combined arms chaos of soldiers and vehicles fighting over flags (Hell Let Loose and Squad both seem scary serious).

They fell over themselves chasing every popular multiplayer FPS trend. Seemingly oblivious to why battlefield players turn up to that game and not the 'popular' ones.

Playing on a Series X.

I am kinda of enjoying it more than I thought? I have enjoyed the 2042 Conquest and Breakthrough modes, along with taking a nostalgia trip to BC/BF3 in Portal.

Like most BF games (or all MP games), it certainly needs some nerfs/buffs, and it has a few bugs, but I am hopeful those will get fixed.

I understand not everybody is happy with the direction that Dice took with 2042, although even those people seem to be playing it. (Judging by the amount of players using the in-game text chat to tell everyone how bad the game is.)

I am assuming they will add more maps to the 2042 game modes, but I do hope the add more to Portal.

Gotdang it I broke my damn hand today so I'll have to watch everybody get great at this game without me. I have been having a better time as more "normies" like me have hit the servers to even out the normal PC murder-pros. Now I'll watch from the sidelines as everybody becomes a murder-pro.

https://www.ea.com/games/battlefield/battlefield-2042/news/battlefield-briefing-launch-update-and-the-road-ahead

Blog post released today detailing fixes coming in the next two patches(one this week and one early December).

While I'm glad a lot of these changes are on the way(revive UI, spread fixes, weekly challenges for unlocks, legible attachment screen)....I can't for the life of me out together why these weren't in the game to begin with....

This HAS to be because of EA wanting this to hit a window or something right? It's all things that had already been vetted and planned out, they just had to be implemented.

Im a software developer, I know how crazy it can be, but I will never understand video game development.

It’s only a few days past our global launch, and there are already millions of you playing Battlefield 2042. We’re happy to see so many of you back on the battlefield - almost twice as many at this point as our last release.

The first sentence from the blog post is quite interesting, 2042 launch is nearly double compared to BFV. The negative reception from some of its core fans didn't impact the casual audience, if Dice can keep up with the updates and not break as much as it tried to fix like it did with BFV then 2042 is gonna be fine.