This is the latest in a string of questionable decisions DICE have been making over the past few years. Somehow the longtime Battlefield developer managed to completely miss the fact that gamers simply don't appreciate their big, triple-A shooters not having a single-player campaign, despite the backlash their first entry into the rebooted Battlefront series and EA's other significant FPSThis is the latest in a string of questionable decisions DICE have been making over the past few years. Somehow the longtime Battlefield developer managed to completely miss the fact that gamers simply don't appreciate their big, triple-A shooters not having a single-player campaign, despite the backlash their first entry into the rebooted Battlefront series and EA's other significant FPS franchise Titanfall received for that very reason, so here we are with another multiplayer only title. This is coming right on the heels of their Battlefront II microtransaction controversy and them telling people if they didn't like the lack of historical accuracy in Battlefield V to not buy it, which ended up being advice everybody happily took (LOL!). That "half a game" mentality many are going to be walking into this with may just be the least of the studio's problems however, as those who do take the plunge will notice plenty of technical shortcomings and a shocking lack of anything innovative enough to truly justify the purchase over continuing to play one of the series' older entries instead. I wasn't expecting to find the most polished version of the game here on what is now considered to be an outdated model of Xbox, but they still could have done a better job. On top of a plethora of weird visual anomalies and glitches, the graphics are dated with blurry textures that often struggle to load in. 2042 also runs into an issue similar to the one Call of Duty: Ghosts had when it tried to simultaneously create an experience that fully took advantage of the capabilities of next gen consoles, while also providing a lesser port that catered to the limitations of older hardware in an effort to cash in on as wide an audience as possible. Which is to say owners of the Series X or PS5 get to partake in massive 128 player battles, whereas those without are stuck in matches only half that size. This leads to some of the larger maps feeling barren at points, which can prove frustrating given how long it takes you to trek to where the action has moved when you don't have access to a vehicle. On the flip side though there are the locations where it seems like if anybody else joined everything would devolve into a giant clustermuck, so maybe neither option has the advantage.
While I've heard a lot of complaints about it, I personally loved the new UI. I have always complained in the past about how so many of Battlefield's important systems like loadout customization have been hidden in a mess of unattractive, obtuse menus. So the way all of this once difficult to decipher information is now presented in a manner that's easy to comprehend and allows me to swap out equipment and weapon attachments between respawns or even mid-combat with little to no trouble is a huge improvement in my eyes. It's a shame that's the sole area where the experience takes a step forward. The core action is undeniably familiar to a fault. There are two new modes, "Hazard Zone" and "Portal." The former of which plays out a lot like "Plunder" from Warzone and is ultimately skippable, while the latter actually shows a lot of potential with its ability for players to create matches with custom rulesets and content taken from fan favorite classics such as Bad Company 2. It's not enough to save the package, but is actually something I would like to see come back expanded in the inevitable next sequel.
As nice as the upgraded, streamlined interface and nostalgia-laden user creation mechanics are, 2042 doesn't offer the necessary amount of original ideas to legitimately validate its existence as worthy of your time over any of its predecessors. I think it's telling that the most fun I had with it was playing with the reused material from 1942. What's worse is that it feels like this is only the case because it was rushed out in an incomplete state before anything substantial could come from it in order to fulfill some bogus regular release requirements or to compete/keep up with the latest Call of Duty. This would explain the lack of expected features (campaign) and highlights how milking a property long after the inventiveness of its creators has run out leads to mediocre products that ultimately drive away the audience it once profited on.… Expand
Battlefield 2042Your Score0 out of 10User Score
