Happy Holidays - Twitter - twitter.com/usa_specialist Join Channel - kzread.infomembership Discord - discord.gg/9jczabSu

@Deeznutz581

Жыл бұрын

Still waiting for the bf3/bf4 soldier movement to return. The movement and jumping feels awkward since after bf4/hardline era . All bf1 bf5 bf2042 feels weird imo

@dezznutz472

Жыл бұрын

if you don't like the new battlefield games and maps, then go play star wars battlefront 2 (2017). that game has the maps you want just like the old battlefield maps. the game is actually a very good game today without all the microtransactions. the game has dozens of diffrent maps. the game has not super much content, but if you want e. g. more diffrent guns or heros, then you can join the Kyber servers. it is private servers made by moders, where you can mod everything you want in the game. have played the game for over 400 hours, have also played the game then it launch so have seen every update the games has. the game is made by Dice so expect it to be very much like battlefield but just like in a sci fi style i think.

You'd think that urban environments would be a perfect fit for 2042 considering the story revolves around the fall of civilization. Imagine if we could have that cool flooded London from Exodus as a map.

@USA_Specialist

Жыл бұрын

Exactly. I would love to see a flooded Amsterdam, torched London, or invaded South Asia. Seeing places we hold in high regards IRL, burnt to the ground would be horrifying.

@TrvvonxLeonn

Жыл бұрын

Nope , here’s a big desert map with like 5 structures set in Qatar or some shit 👍🏽

@troypowers750

Жыл бұрын

Maybe, and that's a big maybe, DICE doesn't want to put EA through what IW put Activision through. That wouldn't make sense considering Kaliedoscope but it's my only half assed theory.

@Conv1cti0n

Жыл бұрын

Exactly! they should have had battles in actual cities that have been "taken over by nature" just like how the last of us environments look. They could have went wild with the destructability but now it just looks so bland.

@AngelGabriel-xm2op

Жыл бұрын

Imagine thinking they still care about the story yikes. It was all made for marketing my brother. They dropped pac's death on us and that irish had a kid and proceeded to throw the story telling out the window when the game came out. How ppl haven't figured it out is beyond me

BF1 also had deeper terrain deformation. So there were plenty of craters to replace destroyed cover. From what I remember last time I played 2042, it was pretty shallow, just like the destruction overall. I don't mind the more open natural maps, as long as they are balanced for infantry to survive more than 5 seconds, and have interesting locations. But I am really craving some dense urban maps like from BF3 and BF4. They always felt more tactical and tense.

@JonnyCrackers

Жыл бұрын

Dice went through and revamped most of the maps. Added more cover and changed the locations of some of the objectives. I don't know when the last time you played it was, but it has really improved a lot and I'd recommend giving it another shot.

@G7ue

Жыл бұрын

@@JonnyCrackers I'm aware, and I'd be willing to try it again, especially after the operator rework. But the issue at hand is that none of my friends play the game lol.

@gianmatute7577

Жыл бұрын

I think it was by design when they made bf1 maps wide and with a lot of craters, some small hills for cover and trenches to incentivize players to use them just like ww1, and instead of going forward to the enemy adopt flanking routes so you dont get into the enemie's line of sight, 2042 is the same but withouth the underground cover and being overall flatter

@Glados1080

Жыл бұрын

@@gianmatute7577 everything about bf1 just worked well together. It was ahead of its time

@cherrypoptart2001

Жыл бұрын

I remember assault classes would throw dynomite to make their own craters for cover in open maps like volga river or literally in the streets of amiens lol

These large natural maps worked well in BF1 because automatic weapons had limited effective range and the TTK was slow enough so that you had a chance to make the run and not immediately get beamed. This added to the “feel” of WW1 where you could feel like you’re in a stalemate until your team makes a massive push across an open field. In BF2042, you can be two-hit-killed by automatic weapons from up to 75m away, vehicles (including helicopters, which unlike planes, don’t have to circle back around and can hover/strafe giving little reprieve) move quickly to intercept infantry in exposed locations. Mackay and Sundance are so popular not just because they are fun but also because trying to get from POI to POI in 2042 is just so much more ass when you aren’t one of those two when there are so few lanes that leave you safe from long range snipers (read: Railgunners) and vehicles. TL;DR: the “natural” map design worked in BF1 because of the slower TTK, slower vehicles, and stalematey frontlines. The design does not suit highly lethal and accurate vehicles and weapons.

@enjoi9970

Жыл бұрын

What are you talking about… 2042 literally has a slower TTK than BF1 LMAO game even has armor plates which makes the TTK that much slower as well. BF1 you can easily get sniped from across the map because the snipers were so insanely OP and easy.

@kuzidas4213

Жыл бұрын

@@enjoi9970 compared to the Rorsch, which is not extremely easy to use? Weapons like the BSV and SFAR with high power have accuracy and muzzle velocity that blast BF1 weapons out of the water. Consider a BSV at 70m vs something like the G. 95 or the Mondragón. Also the BF1 “starter SMG” The MP18 deals 23 damage per shot at 550 RPM. The closest equivalent in 2042, the PBX-45, deals 28 damage (one less shot to kill) AND has a higher fire rate (depending on your ammo and attachments it can range from 630-730, all of which beat out the MP18) not to mention the better ADS accuracy. The long range weapons of BF2042 are more lethal and accurate than the long range weapons of BF1, and the close range weapons of BF2042 are more lethal and faster firing (and still more accurate…) than the ones from BF1. The only advantage snipers in BF1 had over 2042 is that in BF1 you couldn’t tac sprint and fly around with the map with mobility operators, and also the ranges of engagement for snipers in BF1 is typically less than in 2042.

@enjoi9970

Жыл бұрын

@@kuzidas4213 The only reason you don’t get beamed as often in long ranges is because BF1 has the stupid random bullet deviation but obviously sniper’s completely avoid that which I would say snipers in BF1 are far more powerful than any gun in 2042 by a long mile. You also have to consider the range stats of weapons.. you can’t just look at the damage and say it has a faster TTK. 2042 also has an armor gadget which if used it makes it the slowest TTK in battlefield history.

@Xavier28200

Жыл бұрын

@@enjoi9970 The bullet deviation makes it fun

@enjoi9970

Жыл бұрын

@@Xavier28200 How so? It makes it so that you can’t master a weapons recoil

Bad Company 2 changed BF with the massive destruction and great levels too. I almost think Bad Company 2 was more important than any other title for changing how Battlefields were played. It made BF3 and BF4 possible.

@kirkerr

Жыл бұрын

100% correct and BC2 was and still is the best playing BF game to date. I would also love to see some of the BF2 maps remade in BF2042. Just think how good the likes of Strike at Karkand, Gulf of Oman, Sharqi Peninsula and even Road to Jalalabad would look.

@dimitri1154

Жыл бұрын

I just hated the rag-tag casualness of it. That and no air units, but that's what people actually praised it for. CQB and not getting farmed by vehicles 😂

@Jonas-ej7id

Жыл бұрын

BC2 was a downgrade from BF2 & 2142 in what made Battlefield such a awesome team based shooter. But yes the destruction was amazing.

@harambelover9433

Жыл бұрын

@@Jonas-ej7id I agree, BF2 and for me 2142 were the greatest games of all time. BC2 is third though.

@jesse76th96

Жыл бұрын

@@dimitri1154 bc2 had attack copters and transport

I miss the lumbering feel of BF3. It felt much more tactical, where 2042 movement is way too fast. It’s nearly impossible to move with your squad. Not to mention the lack of squad tools and ability to stay in a server.

@jesse76th96

Жыл бұрын

Yeah they turned bf into a twitch shooter now :(

@notadampls

Жыл бұрын

BF3 had such a good blend of heavy action and slower tactics. not to mention you actually got a HUGE benefit to sticking with your squad. Now it feels like the squads are arbitrary and each "class" is just a slightly different loadout for players to go lone wolf with.

@aweldof

Жыл бұрын

It's funny you bring up how BF3 was slow and lumbering, because BF4 got a patch a little while after it launched to speed up the players movement to "match the speed of BF3" which was what the players wanted. We say we want a slower pace, but when we have it we beg for things to be sped up.

@notadampls

Жыл бұрын

@@aweldof Just because they had to speed up BF4 doesnt mean BF3 wasnt slow...

@mxwans1832

Жыл бұрын

Agreed man

Im surprised they isn’t any naval combat maps in this game . I still play bf4 very often and absolutely love the naval strike maps . Love when the ship crashes on the island and the storm comes changing the whole map into an almost night time thunderstorm . Perfect for sniping and using thermal scopes . I feel like so far in 2042 it’s just always one massive tower in the center of the map and a bunch of little towns around it .

@CommanderLongJohn

Жыл бұрын

BF1 Naval maps like Zebruuge are some of the craziest-atmospheric-immersive-fun maps I've ever played in 20yrs of gaming, you got torpedo boats fighting it out, large ships decked out with cannons and artillery to call in, blimps firing down from above, planes dogfighting, infantry duking it out in the subpen, the potential for a modern day setting or even "near future" (even though IMO that's the last setting they should've went for) is unreal.

@spent1985

Жыл бұрын

BF hasn’t done naval fights right since 1942

@surject

Жыл бұрын

@@spent1985 I loved the submarines :|

@kotrixpolska9781

Жыл бұрын

@@surject On what map we can got sub in 1942?

@surject

Жыл бұрын

@@kotrixpolska9781 Wake Island

100% agree. My biggest issue with Battlefield since BF1 released is most maps are bad. Compartmentalization of BF3/4 maps is gone. Some of the BF3 maps are iconic and i dont understand why they won't look at those and learn from them.

@guillaume_Chr

Жыл бұрын

BF1 maps are far supperior than BF4 maps . BF3 & BF1 are on another level in term of map design .

@Jtucker18Videos

Жыл бұрын

BF1 had good maps. Nice layouts and most POIs towards the center. BFV had only 2 good maps until the Pacific DLC because they tried to make maps that get cut off halfway through and are too scenic instead of prioritizing gameplay. Bf2042 is the worst collection of maps ever tbh BF3 is still the pinnacle of maps in the entire series and had something for everyone.

@IamSaud_YT

Жыл бұрын

@@guillaume_Chr you’re not getting the point here. Of course BF1 map design is amazing but it can’t work in any other title that’s the point. As US Specialist said if you bring the BF1 mechanics and vehicles into 2042 it would be a completely different game.

@guillaume_Chr

Жыл бұрын

@@IamSaud_YT I'm not totally agree with that , Saint - Quentin | Amiens | Argonne (just for the example) could work on any BF game . Just look at Caspian Border it was phenomenal just by being a "natural" map ..

@enjoi9970

Жыл бұрын

Lol BF4 maps were terrible the nostalgia is strong here

Dice impression of map design in 2042: add in one unique structure copy and pasted indestructible structures around the area, change the terrain depending on the location( good thing), than copy and paste industrial buildings from orbital and discarded and change the color to make them look different.

@enjoi9970

Жыл бұрын

That’s literally what BF3 and BF4 did lol

@shoemcflextheflex2199

Жыл бұрын

@@enjoi9970 at least they did it good lmao

@enjoi9970

Жыл бұрын

@@shoemcflextheflex2199 What’s doing it good? I guarantee you you don’t even know because it’s all nostalgia

@venommagnus

Жыл бұрын

@@enjoi9970 At least BF3's maps were well designed, can't say too much about 4 since half of that game's maps were a nightmare for Infantry players. BF2042's maps are just copy pasted buildings on flat terrain, zero thought clearly went into the map design despite them having literal backstories, the "remakes" of the already existing maps are also a joke, just a lazy usage of BF4 assets that add little to nothing.

@enjoi9970

Жыл бұрын

@@venommagnus Copy and paste? I mean BF3 literally uses a lot of the same assets on its maps lol. Also, imagine saying a map like exposure is copy and paste lmao also do you see the orbital rocket on any other map? Since you claim everything is copy and paste.. If the remakes were completely changed in designed I guarantee you would complain that it’s too different so the devs are never gonna win no matter what they give you

Grand Bazaar was so good! I really just wish we could get BF3 maps added in to the game already. BF3 had the best maps of all time

@entreri76x

Жыл бұрын

They literally could just re-release a remastered version of battlefield three ,it would be a multi million dollar seller!

@surject

Жыл бұрын

@@entreri76x Venice Unleashed already did that - and nobody plays it :(

@henrique4225

Жыл бұрын

At this time, I just wish BF3 or BF3+BF4 remaster, not with new mechanics or modified maps, just the original games in new generation with everyone with every maps, to not divide players.

@JayJay-he9bk

Жыл бұрын

@@entreri76x I’ve been saying this for a while. Just remaster bf3 already

@JayJay-he9bk

Жыл бұрын

@@entreri76x I’ve been saying this for a while. Just remaster bf3 already

I started playing on BF2 and I like to see some of those maps come in into 2042 like the map of Karkand. I agree, there should be more of urban warfare with mostly infantry, limited vehicle and no air cover. Also, I wished they bring back close quarters games.

@c.m5043

Жыл бұрын

I still have the Karkand loading theme stuck in my head from 2005.

@isveryniceyes

Жыл бұрын

The close quarters dlc maps in bf3 were fucking fun

@shapeshifter-theamorphousg3264

Жыл бұрын

Well, the return of TDM is a start.

@Jonas-ej7id

Жыл бұрын

BF2 still has the best maps, squad play and commander mode. 2142 (most underrated bf game) was a further refinement of it.

the problem is not open maps, the problem is that if 75% of the map is open then the more close quarters section that is the other 25% has to be spread out carefully, but DICE has been creating maps where all the cqc section are clustered into a single blob. They need to follow the direction of Bad Company 2

The Helis are ridiculously overpowered in Siege of Shanghai, too much cover for hells that they are impossible to kill a good pilot.

@shapeshifter-theamorphousg3264

Жыл бұрын

True, the only enemy a good Apache pilot had was the attack heli of the opposing team. Me and my gunner buddy equipped with a repair tool were unstoppable. We knew every potential spot to put the chopper down for a quick fix out of reach for anything infantry! Good memories!

@Chitown18

Жыл бұрын

Shit it could be said the opposite pilots in bf3/bf4 had to deal with 200 different lockons making piloting more difficult

@user-yr7mf3fr3e

Жыл бұрын

@@Chitown18 not on Shanghai though cause you can just hide behind buildings. And loads of servers have annoying rules like no stingers etc, you don't get that as much in the newer games

@Schlappenschleuder

Жыл бұрын

But even good heli pilots got smaked by a good engineer. I loved to take them down with my smaw or RPG.

@Darknova591

7 ай бұрын

everyone loves crying about heils🤣

One thing I liked about Hardline was the shift towards more urban settings. Even a forest level to me felt relatable cause I see myself walking through those paths, driving down those roads. Then there was Battlefield One’s war scarred terrain where there usually being just a glimpse of a small patch of the world beyond the battle line; the fields not having been gutted with trenches, nature abuzz not having been leveled by mortar or stained by viscera. It made it feel like you were running head long into hell itself towards apocalypse. At first, 2042 genuinely hyped me up with the idea of city scapes, landscapes just annihilated by a climate crisis of biblical proportion. But everything was squeaky clean and wide open at first cause 2042 was initially going to be a Battle Royals. The newest maps have felt like a throwback to BF3, BF4 which is great though. Combat and objective play feels much more directed which to me is peak Battlefield: organized chaos.

I loved the maps in BF3/4, in those games you had jungles, deserts, snowy mountains too but also you had small towns, factories, cities which can be changed like Siege of Shanghai or Flood Zone that can be... Well... Flooded and now you can use boats between the buildings. It was brilliant.

I want maps set in future Australia, Sydney would look/be incredible as a mix of infantry and vehicles. The Gold Coast is literally skyscrapers against golden sand beaches where you could have a flood event in a tight urban environment (because climate change or something). Also, I want to see a map that starts in the fields of a country town, that gradually moves into the town itself as a bush fire rolls in from the forest, changing it from a natural environment to an urban one

Great points. 2042 could really use urban maps, though I don’t think it’s completely accurate to say BF3/4 only has urban maps. Some of the more popular maps were natural too (Caspian Border, Operation Firestorm). But I agree that the number of urban maps in the last couple games has been too few. My favorite BF map is Oasis from BC1. You start in an open desert with tanks and helicopters, and progress into an infantry-only urban village. A mix of urban and natural is a great way to shake things up, whether they are combined in one map or you simply have some maps be natural and others urban.

@jesse76th96

Жыл бұрын

Oasis is one of the best maps ever made. That final push through the town in rush felt like a real warzone back then

@PG-3462

Жыл бұрын

My personal favorite maps are all from BF5: Al Sundan, Provence and Mercury

@boyishdude1234

Жыл бұрын

Kaleidoscope and Manifest are urban maps.

Great take. I really like natural maps with weather effects. I like the direction 2042 is going towards. However we do need urban maps. Like karkand shangai and grand bazar. Amiens also. I would love to see a siege of shanguai retaken by nature in season 5. A post apocalyptic feel to it would be a very cool concept

@fullsend_ny7948

Жыл бұрын

SPOKEN LIKE A TRUE SIMP SHM SO ALL IT TAKES IS FOR THEM TO RELEASE OLD MAPS AND YOU WILL BE HAPPY GOOD LORD WHAT A SIMP SMH

@GazDaLad

Жыл бұрын

Yea seen DannyonPcs recent vid about that?

@shawnyscore6988

Жыл бұрын

@@GazDaLad don’t think so

@USA_Specialist

Жыл бұрын

Thanks 🙌 I definitely think these beautiful natural environments have a place in Battlefield, but DICE has totally forgone urban spaces, which is a real same for gameplay and story. Love the support ❤️

@Psyborgasm

Жыл бұрын

The alley way in grand bazar was a blast

I get your point about BF1 starting this trend but even back then there used to be a ton lot more cover and buildings, I can't remember any of the map names tbh but the urban combat in that map with the train, the trenches in the night map, the french fortress, all of those maps use lots of assets and are amazing

@stormer9952

Жыл бұрын

Amiens

@MrTeton

Жыл бұрын

Uhhh. What

@stormer9952

Жыл бұрын

@@MrTeton The map the guy is talking about is Amiens from BF1

@gici1700

Жыл бұрын

BF1 has brilliant map design, I'd say the best out of any battlefield game (of course, it's WWI, naturally there are not any skyscrapers). Amiens, Nivelle Nights, Ball Room, Fao Fortress, Monte Grappa, Tsaritsyn, Pashendale, and the list goes on. A couple of maps had some issues (I can think of Tsaritsyn and Achi Baba) in which you could block the enemy spawns. Conquest assault maps at the end of the day you either like them or not: I despise them. But every map felt unique and special. Battlefield 5 had nothing remarkable. Some maps were breathtaking and gorgeous, but that does not make them unique or special. Battlefield 2042 has nothing remarkable. These maps, at least to me, feel like COD maps but 100x bigger with destruction (and slightly better)

@gremlin_uwu

Жыл бұрын

@@gici1700 I honestly hated BFV the gun variety is non existent and themedic class has some of the most op guns so everybody runs with that in infantry maps, the pacific campaign maps are too open for infantry too, the movement nerfs on armored vehicles are awful, it was okay in BF1 because the infantry had really shitty anti armor gadgets but in BFV the bazooka and the panzerfaust are incredibly op also playing with aircraft sucks because there's an anti air emplacement in every fucking flag

I think the urban maps are a bit of a double edged sword. They provide some natural vehicle balance, like you mentioned. Ground vehicles are more limited in where they can go and the sightlines they can cover. This means they don't have to be nerfed so heavily since they can only control small areas, and have more difficulty escaping when enemy infantry wants to destroy these vehicles. Plus skyscrapers make flying much more difficult and require much more skill, which again makes the vehicles require less nerfs. And then obviously all the building interiors provide tons of cover from these vehicles. I also agree about the "awe factor" of these maps. Even now, it's still incredible loading into Siege of Shanghai and seeing a war take place in a dense urban environment. It really drives home the idea that war has consumed the world and that it's stretched far beyond traditional battlefields. However, these environments can be wildly annoying with how much camping they allow. Battlefield is infamous for all the players that want nothing more than to camp from hundreds of meters away in pockets nearly impossible to dislodge them from, or atop tall buildings with no viable way to kill them from below, while they just farm kills and take pot shots. Sure they might lose the game, but winning the game from the other side isn't a very fun experience. Plus, depending on the map, sometimes moving between interiors can be a tedious and frustrating endeavor. Enemy vehicles can very easily start controlling those exteriors and make players feel unable to leave the one place in which they've found a bit of safety. Many times, dense urban maps just becomes continually spawning on one or two interior areas and never leaving them to avoid being insta killed by a tank, helo, or any of the dozen snipers. Coming back from that position often feels annoying and unfulfilling. I also think 2042 isn't the fairest comparison since we all know by now that it was originally designed to be a BR, not a conventional Battlefield game. With that in mind, the open space and larger gaps between points of interest make a lot of sense, a core part of BR map design is power positions and high risk movement as the player is forced to rotate. A lot of the launch maps very obviously were originally BR maps hurriedly repurposed. I would like to see them lean more toward the mix we have in BF5, which I think has some great urban, chaotic maps, some really sparse and open maps, and some that have a blend. Maybe we'll get an urban map at some point in the future for 2042, but I do expect them to return in the next title that is intended to be conventional Battlefield from the start.

@USA_Specialist

Жыл бұрын

I realized after recording I should have mentioned 2042's bastardized development, and its origins as a different style of game. Great point.

@giahuynguyenkim6389

Жыл бұрын

But like... 2042's maps style dates back to like... BF2.

@BlackTearsYT

Жыл бұрын

@@giahuynguyenkim6389 I'm not sure what you're talking about

@giahuynguyenkim6389

Жыл бұрын

@@BlackTearsYT 2042's enviromental maps aren't BR specific. It's from the olden days of the Refractor era.

@BlackTearsYT

Жыл бұрын

@@giahuynguyenkim6389 Oh, no. They might both be vaguely environmental, but 2042 are 100% originally BR maps. I'm not saying it as opinion, 2042 was developed as a BR game, along with the launch maps, that then had to be hastily changed to try to be a regular BF game.

I literally had the same issue you said with bf2042 with bf4. Empty maps lazily designed around a gimmick which looks good in trailers. Dice changed their map creation workflow for bf4 and I absolutely hated it.

I really like your take here. I never thought of it that way but it makes so much sense when thinking about vehicle balance. In bf4 I always had options of where to go as infantry. Now it feels more like a hail mary any time I want to go from one point to another. And yes 128 player servers are bigger and cooler on the surface, but I actually never really thought to myself "man I wish bf4 had twice as many players". I hope that EA Dice is able to see the shortcomings and strengths of both maps styles and put together some good ones in the future with an improved Frostbite engine.

@enjoi9970

Жыл бұрын

Huh? The complete opposite.. BF4 literally punishes infantry gameplay in most maps lol

@zachb1706

Жыл бұрын

4 is a terrible example as most maps were built with vehicles first

@enjoi9970

Жыл бұрын

@@zachb1706 Exactly there’s so many wide open maps that people just choose to ignore

Battlefield 3 Close Quarters is what’s needed, some options to have tight close quarters battles. This should be a thing with the focus on portal bringing old experiences into one package as 2042.

Problem is that there is no Levelution that can change the gameplay, like Manifest has crane 🏗️ campers, you could blow up the cranes so the campers won’t camp there and the destroy crane creates even more cover on the roads so that vehicle like tanks can’t drive by easy

@hellomynameisjim

Жыл бұрын

lmao imagine thinking levolution is a key gameplay mechanic 😂 honestly one of the worst ideas BF devs have had alongside agents...

@Darknova591

7 ай бұрын

@@hellomynameisjim i think Levolution will make a good gameplay mechanic

One Major Issue at least for is how DICE designs the buildings. All maps have buildings with one or two gigantic rooms and a lot of objectives inside, to create the impression that it's a complicated structure. Maybe only Exposure doesn't follow this pattern. The interiour design is very bad. Just to be clear: Spearhead has 2 building with a lot of entry points and each building has 1 big room with an insane height of the cieling. The top entry presents an empty room with only 1 path. The new maps are way better than the base game but still very bad compared to other BF maps.

@TheLizardKing752

Жыл бұрын

Yeah I was kinda disappointing running into the Spearhead buildings the first time.

@yootchoobe

Жыл бұрын

Spearhead: a giant building.. except it's only a single ground floor 🤷🏻‍♂️

@Dan.Zaporojan

Жыл бұрын

@@yootchoobe you have an entry from the ventilation system.

@yootchoobe

Жыл бұрын

@@Dan.Zaporojan er, yes but you're surely not comparing an additional entrance to the floor plan of the actual factory playable area - the building looks like it should have ten floors in it 😊

Another question, what happened to the destruction 🤔 its there but only superficially. The days of levelling a house or levolution are gone

Its like after Battlefront 1 launched with the lack luster weapon selection it had, design choices and priorities switched up for the BF series. Its like they brought over the same design philosophy. Bare minimum weapon selection too and no weapon mods with it being WW era guns. Maps feeling like they were half auto-generated.. The Bad Company series and into BF3, this game was all about shooting cool satisfying weapons and destructible environments and interesting maps all leading to the funnest combat gameplay in the series.

4:44 cat & mouse gameplay vs tanks was my favorite part of battlefield back when I played the franchise during 3 & 4. It’s what set the game apart from COD for me.

I think having Spearhead be set in Lapland is quite possibly the worst location idea possible. Both Finland and Sweden have places called Lapland, and it definitely confused me for weeks. I always thought they were talking about Finnish Lapland and I thought the devs couldn’t get geography right.

Never even tried bf2042. I started playing this series on PC with BF1942. I often return to BF4 and Bad Company.

@USA_Specialist

Жыл бұрын

It should be available on PC and Xbox via Gamepass. Give it a try if you can. In DICE fashion it took an extra year to get right, but worth a try for a few bucks now.

@shapeshifter-theamorphousg3264

Жыл бұрын

BF2042 is worth giving a shot by now, the game had(and still has) a drastic overhaul going on that adressed a lot of it's shortcomings and poor design choices. It still has it's flaws, with the abscense of a proper serverbrowser being my biggest gripe, but i am having a lot of fun with it now and at times it does remind me of BF4, which still stands as the greatest BF of all time in my book. With another year of new content and fixes ahead it will turn out pretty good eventually, no doubt!

I absolutely don't know how they managed to make a game 8 years after another game in the franchise where literally EVERY SINGLE aspect ,except for maybe the movement and bullet spread, is worse than its predecessor. It's crazy to me how they ignored all feedback, didn't take example of what worked and what didn't and fucked up so massively when all they had to do is look at Bf3 and Bf4...

I understand why this happenned i think. Because both bf1 and bf5 were set during ww1 and ww2 ish eras, which were historucally fought in more open areas so they stuck with the historical theme for map design. Then in 2042 they wanted city areas but they didnt want 2 alter 2 far in map design to upset bf1 and bf5 fans, so thay made 2042 have both city areas and open areas

My only counter-point is: Battlefield 1 wasn't the starting point of the natural maps. The Desert map in the Portal mode is a direct callback to Battlefield 1942. Both 1942 and Battlefield Vietnam (Not to be mistaken with Bad Company 2's Vietnam expansion) featured natural environments. They've been a part of Battlefield since 2002 when BF1942 came out. So, these types of maps are no strangers to the franchise. I was 16 when the game dropped and I have a lot of fond memories from those times. I actually prefer the more natural environments. But I do enjoy the urban settings here and there.

map design is first influenced by server size. 128 player servers are simply harder to figure out what to do with, which is why they just threw out maps with vast open spaces. bad company 2 had a lot better forest/ urban density balance imo because of it being a 24 player game. when it became a 64 player game, maps had more openness in them

@FERTUHG

Жыл бұрын

It was a 32 player game on pc and it was incredible fun

@chipperripper0896

Жыл бұрын

@@FERTUHG I bought it for both PC and Xbox 360. Honestly it had better pacing on 24. Almost like it was just meant to be played that way. Just my opinion. I got close to that 150 rank cap on both versions. Also I just want the map Oasis back again. Fantastic map nobody talks about.

@nocap20

Жыл бұрын

Well i mean, in a full 128 game, some maps still feel too big, having square kilometers of unused space, the same thing happened to bf3 and bf4, bf1 and bfV felt more like bad company 2 in terms of distribution

actually I think BF5 has the best map design ever made in any BF game.I also think BF5 is the best BF game ever made.The gun play , and physics destruction and ghraphics is so good

Not only map design but movement of your character IS PARAMOUNT to gameplay. In BF3 the movement felt REAL and tracking strafes made sense. They shortcut the movement animations in BF4 to make gameplay seem faster and many were taken back by this step backwards towards call of duty movement. Look at Warzone 2.0 they slowed down the Arcade movements and people loved it. How your character moves is directly related to your feedback and if they have no weight or impact neither does your experience. If every step you take can make a difference then it forces you to think.

I think you missed a crucial part of the whole design thing: it is astonishing how many assets in 2042 are just QUIXEL ASSETS. From tarps you can download as well from the bridge to terrain textures, photogrammetry has come so far, that many publishers and devs wanna utilize the tech that is able to finally create life like natural environments. It might be easier to create a good looking empty field, but I also think that it's harder to create believable areas like that. Atmosphere, wind, sound, moving grass... I truly believe that its easier to create a cityscape, especially with duplicating assets or trim sheets. THOUGH creating city's and locations like that is a challenge on the other hand, due to ACTUALLY designing routes, overviews, sightlines, and obviously, a good looking aesthetic. I wish that we had more maps like the background of kaleidoscope. High towers with war between them.

I think Dice also became overly obsessed with preventing spawn traps after BF3 to an extent that hurt the map design.

I think they should launch Portal as a seperate game, with all iconic battlefield maps.

I don't mind the "natural" maps, but there are just too many in the latest BF games, especially one like 2042 where urban combat seems like it would be much more plausible in the world of 2042. I can see where Dice tried to get some of that urban feel (skyscrapers/stadium on Hourglass, B flags of Manifest to some extent, Kaleidoscope) but they missed because those "urban" areas don't have the playability like Metro, Locker, or any number of older maps do. They're one story with almost nothing interesting going on and very little in the way of interesting combat situations. I really hope season four and five (and maybe more seasons) give us the urban environments like we used to get.

That BF4 trailer gave me chills, reminds me of being in grade 9 and watching that for the first time

1:20 This gameplay trailer was pure hype.

Shouts out to Bad Company 2, as well. It paved the way for BF3, and everything after. It had a great mix of urban and large landscapes, and the gunplay felt so good. Best Rush maps to date, as well.

The main problem with the most recent battlefield games maps is the lack of close quarters combat areas, breakthrough 128 was a great mode the only bad thing was that during the time that it was out most of the maps except for manifest we're just wide open areas and a marathon simulator, maps and older battlefield titles always had a variety of close combat areas to where you could be in fast Pace to action unlike their launch maps of 2042

The editing on this is absolutely effing incredible for a channel with 3k subs??????? WTF. Yeah I'm subbed bro

Broo. I tought my phone was slyding down when you played the down animation🤣 Got a heart attack

istg, i played 2042 hardcore, can't even survive 2 seconds as an infantry lol

I would float Gulf of Oman as an example of an urban area that failed pretty badly, although that was due to multiple factors (Weather effect, assault mode), not just the layout of the urban area. Not only is technical resource allocation more challenging in urban areas but I think proper map flow and game design in tighter areas are as well.

@USA_Specialist

Жыл бұрын

100%, I think that map had its moments, but those open spaces between objectives and how attack helicopters could own the map, was painful.

@TheLizardKing752

Жыл бұрын

​@@USA_Specialist I never played much BF3, but Pearl Market was my favorite BF4 map by a good margin. Urban maps like that had a pretty painful learning curve however and I'm not sure Dice would be willing to put that type of map out into today's FPS landscape.

@BlackNuke145

Жыл бұрын

Gulf of Oman is a great map what you on about 😄

@syminite1

Жыл бұрын

Battlefield 3 is above question.

I played a lot of BF4 and I remember how much fun helos were in maps like flooded or dragon pass. The constant cat and mouse with AA and other aircraft, timing countermeasures, dipping into cover, peaking out to take a shot. It felt like an actual challenge. Flying fast and ducking and weaving through maps was an absolute blast. Even the transports were fun. keeping it level so gunners could take shots, but getting to cover super quick. Good times!

BF4 Final Stand expansion had some of that open field design you are talking about but it was max 2 maps.

A point I think missed in this video is that these types of maps WORKED in Battlefield 4. The China Rising and the snowy DLC both have huge wide open maps, but they’re still designed just as well and play as great as the rest of the maps in the game.

Ive been playing Battlefield since Battlefield 1942. Honestly, it feels like the limitation brought on by the player count and vehicles, not to mention the cost of creating the maps as well as the reworking of the games class system. combine that with the lack luster sales, it usually causes financial restrictions(financial greed) to adding new content.

02:37 map is Al Elamein from BF1942 remastered into BF2042 Portal - just so your viewers know that. It's a desert map so it's going be naturally open because it's literally a desert 🏜

Battlefield 3 and 4 also had maps set in natural environments.

Natural environments made sense for Bf1 to be fair due to the time period

2042 by far has/had the worst maps of any Battlefield game I’ve played. Made no sense how open these maps were, pretty much every map is a sniper’s dream, or a helicopter’s dream because there’s nowhere to run and cover. I still play 2042 here and there, but I’m jumping back on BF1 for the time being.

Do you play with medium settings? The map design is good in bf 2042 more maps are coming in

Very underrated channel. This is a great video . I’m still waiting for the soldier movement and jumping from bf3/bf4 . Bf1 Bf5 Bf2042 all feel weird and awkward imo

@USA_Specialist

Жыл бұрын

I remember when they first added the running / vaulting jump in Battlefield 3, that felt so crazy. So much momentum.

It would be great to be able to play maps like Amiens and Rotterdam in a "modern version"

@NicCrimson

Жыл бұрын

Yh why don't they bring back popular maps like how cod does it?

I think the weapons and vehicles in bf1 made the map changes necessary, personally I think bf1 maps are top tier and all stood very far apart from one another.

@chipperripper0896

Жыл бұрын

Also quite a few of those DLC maps that sadly never come in rotation were great great fun. Those Tsar maps were awesome!

BF3 and BF4 are forever in my heart ♥

@boxcarchildrent.v.8477

Жыл бұрын

Operation locker 😢memories

@NicCrimson

Жыл бұрын

BF4 & BF1 for me

My favorite is definitely gulf of oman. it featured some cqb and urban environments, while allowing for vehicle combat and some verticality

I've been playing since BF4 (barely, started after the BF1 trailer but before BF1 launch) and I enjoy the large natural maps. I really like using the terrain to my advantage, using rocks, berms, hills and more as cover. BFV has some really great examples of open natural terrain that also blocks sightlines and has good pathing and cover to objectives. But there really needs to be a limit to open maps. I really think the urban maps are where the Battlefield is the best. Nothing is cooler than piloting a heli around the skyscrapers on Shangai or Dawnbreaker. I missed BF3 and most of BF4 and mostly played BF1/V. I've really been waiting for a great modern era Battlefield title and I'm pretty disappointed that it hasn't come out yet. I want to see one that pushes the boundaries of graphics, sound design, and immersion just like BF3/4 did when they came out. Some of that is there in BFV and BF1. BF1 has the most impressive sound design I've heard ever and BFV is still the best looking MP FPS game I've seen to date despite being 5 years old next year. Every now and then I have fun in 2042 and think "You know what maybe this game isn't too bad." Then I hop on BF4, 1, or V and immediately feel like I'm playing a next gen game in literally every aspect. Battlefield is in my top 3 favorite franchises and it really makes me so sad to see it fall like this. 80% of the hate for these new games are because the fans want to see the game succeed so bad, but whoever is in charge keeps making the worst decisions. Let the people that design the game design a military shooter and not whatever Big Boss Boy is feeling like this year.

Honestly even BF4 had some great natural maps, Paracel storm, Golmud Railway, all the maps for Naval Strike, and that community test map, all great outdoors and natural maps.

Commander online.... That made me hard, that was a good game I don't know what happened to battlefield.

Happy holidays, USA ❤️ we appreciate you

Great video, very well put together. Just subscribed! Also, are you from the Philly area by chance? A few words you say have an accent that comes through lol

I'd love to see the flooded London from the exodus trailer

It's not about urban vs nature it's a matter of how sparse these maps feel with very little to fill the space, they see this and realized it and are starting to rework these maps. I agree the older maps felt more real than the current ones because they had ambience in the decoration and care into the map, in most recent maps a big part of this was covered in the form of the terrain being changed when something is destroyed. There's one noticable place in the new maps where this happens the rocket being blown up that effects a small piece of the map

The environment doesn’t matter as much as the level design. If the city maps were not designed well, the game still gonna suck

@Darknova591

5 ай бұрын

Just like Hourglass

You absolutely nailed it man! I feel like bf maps have been on a downward slope since bf1

Parcel storm, I miss the attack boats

1:14 Totally Awesome Clip You’ve Got There

Remember the bc2 rush days? Thats where the fun begun. Destroying the objective by just levelling the building, man i miss it.

I think it would have been cool if they took old maps we loved such as Arica Harbor,Atacama Desert,Karkand,Wake Island,Seine Crosisng,Metro,Locker,Firestorm,Grand Bazaar and put the 2042 lore into them. All the maps destroyed. What we remembered and related to and destroyed, Turned to desolate land or the buildings we remembered playing in turned to rubble with new lanes of combat to fit the narrative of 2042.

I have been playing Battlefield since Battlefield 1942. The natural design that you talk of has been a staple of Battlefield since the beginning. Most maps were open and had long fields until Bad Company 2 and more so in Battlefield 3. Battlefield has always had these maps. However, since BF3 and BF4, they included more infantry focused maps, like Metro and Locker. I don't think the problem is the open field maps as much as a lack of maps like Locker. Gulmumd Railway was a favorite map on rotation in BF4. That map is very much in line with the map design of 2042. The problem is that the server rotation isn't there, with smaller maps in the mix to change the experience. The BIGGEST problem is the lack of dedicated server browsers with both large-scale and smaller maps. The map variety is the problem.

@xitzxsharky5010

Жыл бұрын

Tell em John these young guys that think they know so much of the franchise really have no clue.

@rotank638

Жыл бұрын

I absolutely despise what they did in BF5, splitting maps between “tactical” and “strategic,” which meant you could only ever see about half the maps on a single rotation. Personally I was a fan of BF1’s voting system, as sometimes I just want to play on a bad map that I haven’t seen in months…

@johnwstruhar

Жыл бұрын

BF4 had, I think, the best server browser. You had Official Dice servers, and paid user servers. With Portal, they have the means to do it. They missed the boat by making Portal separate from the main game. They could have had the official Dice servers, mixed with user/fan based servers. The rotation and selection would have been closer to BF4's browser. That to me is the fix, along with adding those missing maps like Operation Locker and Metro.

@rotank638

Жыл бұрын

@@johnwstruhar BF4 had a great server browser and custom servers, but it does have a set linear progression of maps… I believe that BF2 also has a built in voting system for next map prior to the end of the previous round.

I think the devs need to take cues from Planet Side 2. Open maps with vehicle was never an issue for infantry in that game. Any one can grab a vehicle, and movement to and from points had better strategic value.

I would love an actual city map in Battlefield 2042.

Everything in 2042 is a downgrade from BF3-BF4. Everything.

@enjoi9970

Жыл бұрын

Hmm let’s see.. TTK is better in 2042, movement is better, weapon and gadget and vehicle balance is better, even class balance is better, gunplay is better, QOL improvements made in 2042 overall

I personally like more open slower moving maps. They feel more immersive than people running around corners and knee sliding Call of duty style. But, I've also been playing this game since battlefield 1942 on pc. The one thing I hate about open maps though are snipers. But a good open map with armor and transport and cover is a dream for tactics

Bf1 started this I remember the desert map being being pure sand and a couple 2 story buildings

The BF2042 maps lack verticality and density... I don't think a natural map is bad. (And no, verticality isn't just being on top of a skyscraper) If you look at Iwo Jima (BF5) they used the natural terrain to create a lot of pinches for vehicles and tunnels and nooks for infantry... it seems flat, but it's not, the elevation is constantly changing. Twisted Steel also has a great sense of verticality, the map is relatively flat, but the bridge overlooks everything while being a divide and tough spot for vehicles. Most of the buildings in BF5 and before have like 3-4 stories. (including the roof) You get to these big ships on BF2042 and think wow there's gonna be a lot of verticality... but no, its just 2 stories... top and bottom. Stranded does the concept better because the landscape has a lot more verticality around the ship, and you can cut under the ship etc... but Discarded fails at the same concept because its terribly flat, terribly large and open. Even maps with decent buildings like Renewal, there's only one good building on each end of a large empty map. The stadium and it's courtyard out to the closest bridge is like literally the only good place on Hourglass. I think Orbital does everything pretty well except for the "runway" nothing is flatter nor more empty than the runway. I think Exposure is the best step for BF2042 so far, they created a lot of verticality, however the top and bottom of the map are still kinda barren and flat. The tunnels layer is good though. Spearhead is okay, there's quite a lot of variation in terrain like Iwo Jima. But again, big ass buildings only have a top and bottom, and the top isn't even intended to be accessible.... imagine if they slapped the Scrapmetal or Operation925 layouts inside these two buildings. :^)

^:45 - you forget one thing about BF 1 - map design was predetermined by setting. Most of the iconic WWI battles were on open areas. While in BF2042 maps look like this bc whole developing process of this game was a mess - starting with being a BR style game. Developers did not have proper amount of time to even thought about making proper mix of both open and natural maps, dense cities/urban/industrial areas and some "in between". Which led to wasting assets.

I agree the city maps in previous games have always been y favorite.

Bro, you joined with Battlefield 3, this was the 8th Title! Less games came out after its release. Big natural environments have always been part of the games. I agree that there should be a nice balance, but i am a tank and helicopter fan since i played BF2 for the first time.

It wend from 'Battlefield' to just 'Field'

The thing about BF4 is that the spread and recoils of guns were far stronger that of 2042. 2042 u can literally laser someone across the map while you're strafing with something like the Advancy , AC42 or M5. Bf4 u had to stop and tap fire for long range plus the guns kicked, the few guns that could of lasered u at range were balanced out with weak ttk.

wasn't the first comparison using a trailer vs in game player made gameplay? Just found that the only thing that caught me off guard since it felt a bit skewed in the way both were presented. The trailer one just looked like pre-made movements with how the player was barely interacting with what was going on around them? I could be wrong, since I haven't watched BF4 gameplay in a long time, but it never felt/looked like that even while playing the game lol. something just looks off

That intro sequence was great. Keep it up!

I had a dream. A game that had the fidelity and destruction of bf1, with the option to build cover like bfv, with the weapons, vehicles, and soldiers of bf3/4. Still just a dream....

128p should never come back. (Also siege wasnt that good either with long straight lines of sight and a bunch of towers without entry point)

@dbz9393

Жыл бұрын

It had cool night maps tho

@DANNYonPC

Жыл бұрын

@@dbz9393 1 map (that released)

@dbz9393

Жыл бұрын

@@DANNYonPC there's not enough night maps in modern shooters :(

Because Battlefield 1 is generally well received by many people, so DICE decided to make similar maps based on the ones from Battlefield 1 for future titles but with different skins.

The problem noone addresses is that dice and ea have run off all the old developers for battlefield. There is basically noone from bf3 BF4 etc onwards working on them anymore. The last game they all made was BF1 and you can see the steady decline afterwards.

I always wanted a map in the middle of Manhattan

I enjoyed 3/4 urban maps but let’s not delude ourselves into think they both didn’t feature DLC packs (some were even base BF3 maps) that weren’t full environmental maps either. Hell most of BF4s DLC was that. It’s more to handle the larger player count the maps have grown in scope, which more just leads to extremely empty maps. It’s not something I feel like is fixed by just throw everyone in a smaller more focused map, because with a full player count it’ll just devolve into a planetside 2-esque mindless meat grinder. I’d also be surprised if anyone player metro or shanghai and their first thought was “Oh this is the place from the campaign!!! This makes it so much better!!!”

bfv had some nice maps, provence is still my favourite map on any multiplayer game. Mainly due to memories ofc but the open area for vics and cqc of the villiage was absolutely great. also ment that as a vic your main threat was other vics and not infantry, imo a better thing.

Well to be fair, the def team is almost a new one. Yes i miss a real urban map as well. I mean their are two all time classic loved maps. One is old as the game series it self, Wake island

I can't wait for season 5.

Great video man, operation locker, and metro, and also rouge transmission sounds great for remaster, zavod a great infantry map

@USA_Specialist

Жыл бұрын

Rogue Transmission would fit into the world of 2042 so we'll.

@atiagooqkinguliaalu4027

Жыл бұрын

See this is why there is no new great maps because everyone keep asking for remasters... Thats why they are lazy af unfinished un-optimized Beta testing it at launch and call alpha beta's.

“What happened to battlefield’s map design?” Answer: It’s cheaper and easier to make landscapes than complex buildings designs and architecture.