I hope DICE playtests the shit out the next game's maps, with people outside the company so they can get a feel for how they will actually play when released.īF1 was one of my least favorite games in the series though, I ended dropping it pretty quick. One map every three months is just too little, it gets stale, especially when the rest of base maps are pretty abysmal. I think the live service thing would work better if they could just manage to put out 3 maps per update. It’s all quite competently put together but sadly ruined by a few influential and frankly bad design overlords that just don’t understand what makes the franchise tick. It’s tragic that they’ve reverted to these big static spaces that play out the same every time.įranchise needs a refresh and some design tenets need putting in place. This is just further evidence that Battlefield’s future was building on the destruction and map interactivity of BFBC2. Lastly the best bit of that trailer was when he blew a hole in the building and grappled through. I understand it takes time but it says everything about this game that post-launch their resource is spent rowing back the terrible design decisions like Operators, and fixing the bad maps. I’m also annoyed that they continue to spend their post launch energy fixing the terrible maps that came with the game, over a year after launch.
I think there is a way to funnel players and have them contribute to a larger battle, whilst making their actions feel meaningful, but 2042 doesn’t do that. I always preferred 32 player Battlefield to 64, and now I prefer 64 to 128. It feels like some compromises were made on gunplay and weapon ballistics to accommodate the larger scale, and once again I don’t feel the game uses that larger scale in any meaningful or additive way. I played the recent update and whilst much better it didn’t feel as polished or satisfying as Warzone or even other shooters like Halo or R6.
0 kommentar(er)
