The first 200 people to sign up to Brilliant will get 20% off their annual premium subscription. To learn more visit: brilliant.org/SkillUp/ . Thanks Brilliant for sponsoring the video.
So the thing about Portal Mode... You can only use the logic editor in Team Death Match and Free-For-All which means you can't full customize weapons & gadget loadouts in Conquest/Conquest Large or Rush game modes. Classes are restricted to only have access to the gear that is available in that classes base game. This means Battlefield 3 classes can only use Battlefield 3 weapons and gear. The only way to circumvent this is with the logic editor which can't be used on Objective based game modes. This was done intentionally to restrict players from making custom games that compete with the default 2042 All Out Warfare mode.
@@SaltyDerps I can assure you many many people won’t even mind and will have a fantastic time playing this. All these issues would drive me nuts but… most people will just bag this up on their last gen console and enjoy it and not care at all. Nothing to learn, really.
This feels like two different teams were working on the same game, one focused on the heart of the game series (Portal) and the other focused on doing something that business people would be satisfied with (ie, specialists, BR-like game modes and whatnot).
That's exactly what happened and they're very open about this. The team working on Portal only had ~14 months (I think) to get it into its current state
@@henryhamilton4087 ye it's kinda sad about battlefield 5. I just bought it recently and I think it's an amazing game that could have been an all-time battlefield great with a bit more time. Guess I'll just keep playing bf5 until 2042 is better.
This game feels like it's developed by new devs that have never played a Battlefield game before. Portal is the only thing that I really enjoyed when playing.
But even that doesn’t do it for me. I barely have any cause to play with it. Two BF 3 maps (not even the most popular maps) For instance. Ok so what… I’m disappointed in the game, very disappointed
portal isn't even that good honestly. Bunch of bugs due to trying to re-create old games and old mechanics in a new engine with different features. Also only 2 maps per game, limited guns, overcrowded maps, etc. I'd rather they just remaster the old games then try to tack on hollow copies.
This game looks to much like Cod Warzone from the movement mechanics and the way the guns handle, all the guns shoot like lazer beams like in every cod game they have no character like in previous Battlefields, I won't be getting this garbage. This game has lost its identity.
Battlefield 4 CTE was 7 years ago, and I cannot believe this is the product we've finally arrived at. The unintended stuff (bugs, performance issues, etc) isn't the deal breaker for me, because they'll fix that. What hurts my soul are all the countless ways BF2042 has regressed compared to past Battlefield titles. You can fill a BOOK with how many basic features we took for granted in past Battlefield games are straight-up absent in this game. The past 10+ years of community feedback and improvements through all the various Battlefield titles (UI, gunplay, map design, movement, HUD, squads, roles, etc) has all amounted to nothing. BF2042 is not a successor, it is a giant leap backwards full of regression and removal.
I agree. I didn't cover that here because I did so in my beta impressions but you're spot on. This feels like a new IP, not the latest in a franchise with nearly two decades worth of history.
The most I hate about BF2042 is that it looks and feels like a CoD clone. Gameplay wise Battlefield tended to a be a bit slower, the guns more "realistic", now it looks like we're firing lasers with almost no recoil. And I don't know what to think about the specialist shit... I guess they wanted to follow the trend of games like Overwatch with heroes, and a backstory. Who gives a fuck about that? I want to be a noname soldier, not Harry McGuffin with his grappling hook.
@@fesoy1174 To be fair, that's basically every AAA game these days. I can't remember one I purchased that wasn't half-broken at release and needing big fixes and balance adjustments.
People need to understand that what developers and publishers peddle as a beta is hardly a beta. Most games' actual betas never see the light of day outside of NDA test groups. Also, people need to understand that even half a year is not that long time in game development when it comes to fixing major issues. Most likely if it is broken in the supposed beta, it will be broken or at best partially fixed in the release version. Public betas are just demos meant to stress test servers, more or less. Oh, and check what in-game items players like the most and then put those behind extra paywalls, just like in Ghost Recon Breakpoint.
for 30$ portal would sell like hotcakes... would the overhead not be lowered b/c most of the assets already exist. or would they need to make them all from the ground up? but if that were the case EA could sell other chunks of portal content as DLC packs and because of the lower portal price ppl would justify buying more than they really should.
Battlefield has never been about characters. When playing, you have always been just another soldier on the battlefield. I think the specialists are unneccessary. They probably wanna push this idea so that they can sell more skins and such. EA wants some of that lootbox and skins trend. Such a greedy company.
literally the opposite of what is right, it's supposed to be no name unknown soldiers dying by the millions not genderqueer identity people trading 4th wall breaking quips every couple of seconds
@@trevorn2969 what sucks is that if you buy on day one you get a buggy, in complete game. If you wait a few months or a year, then the hackers have overrun the game by then 😭
@@badboygoodgirl so don't wait . I played it yeah there are bugs but it is battlefield it is beautiful. I mean pop in is just pop in so what a tree pops in a second later sometimes. Just play have fun
I'm so done with games launching incomplete and unfinished because they are live service games and will update post-launch. Live service brought a lot of bad to gaming as well. You would think they would continue to make content packed products and expand them post launch instead of stripping all of it away and release them unfinished and barebones. I don't understand how DICE made a game that took a big step away from the classic 64 player flow and gameplay AND introduced Specialists for a game that has a lot depending on it in terms of the franchise name and revival. AI add so many boring and lifeless experiences to the game. Feels like big scores don't meaning anything.
Gamers are also to blame for the sorry state that the industry is in now. Every time a low quality AAA is released, they always have some excuse as to how it's okay.
Took the words right out of my mouth. I remember the good ol' days when your finished product was... yeah, your finished product. That was it. There's always this "hope" mechanic with gamers, especially those who pre-ordered something. You want to feel like you didn't waste your money. You want to feel like you didn't get screwed over. Welllllllllll...
Battlefield always had its own identity. You as a soldier, in a squad, picking a role and thrusted into an epic war. With the Operator system the identity is lost from other shooters. As a diehard battlefield fan, this game is a tough sell.
You're not alone. They're looking for any reason to start selling skins like COD, hopefully some people with Battlefield aren't that Goddamned stupid. But seeing as how they're basically pulling things from COD left and right, it doesn't look good.
@@castlesbard1547 It would’ve been cool if we were still soldiers and they could still add skins but they’re just changes in armor or camos kinda like battlefield 4. Where you’re still a solider but you can change camos. Rather then operator skins.
@@spoiledsalad1851 While I still think BF4 was the best in that regard. BF1 admittedly(in my honest opinion) had/has the best soldier designs. While it wasn't great in balance, I believed BF1 was a step in a different direction(whether that's good or bad, I can't say for everyone). And I'm not going to talk about BFV, I feel that any rational person would agree that BFV was just garbage with hardly any redeeming qualities. A shame that the devs didn't seem to learn that in making 2042.
@@castlesbard1547 thats why i felt like they made 2 versions of the game tbh. the monetized version theyre slowly working towards(?) being 2042 and then the actual good part of the game that could be the answer being portal. i think if they really wanted to make a game to please they would just scrap the base game entirely because all i see is people buying the game exclusively for portal and wouldnt touch 2042 at all because of the specialists
@@scrotumscratcher2474 Definitely. The problem with that is people will end up giving them a free pass to just copy and paste old Battlefield maps and weapons all the while the new map(s) and weapons are *still* horribly balanced. One could argue that older weapons were still not balanced, but variations in the map allowed for different weapons to shine in different places. Some BF4 maps for example, I can't recall the names right now unfortunately. Pulling a different game into this for an example. Destiny 2, had some decent map layouts, the issue was they couldn't balance weapons(or classes) to save their lives. That's why an SMG(D2 players know which one), and sniper rifles *DOMINATED* almost every single encounter for the longest of times. And for the most part, still do.
Definitely going to wait for a few months before picking this up, if I even do. The bugs are an issue, but the core gameplay decisions taken by Dice are a major roadblock. I think this specialist system is probably the worst thing Dice have implemented into a game, ever. They basically took an excellent system, gutted it, and replaced it with this trash so they can sell us more cosmetics. No thanks.
Agreed. The specialist system is a no go for me. If they sold the portal portion of it for just $15 or $20, I'd buy that. Until then I'll just keep playing BF1 which is an amazing game that runs flawlessly and is easily the best looking BF game.
If you actually watched this video for 5min, you'd know that skill up refutes that claim. It seems the specialist system was designed purposely for the hazard zone. His main issue is the current TECHNICAL state and the fact they weren't given enough time with the game. So he is discouraging day 1 buy bit he clearly looks the core gameplay elements.
@@blackcaesar8387 oh yeah, because EA is totally going to be restrained when it comes to monitization lmao. That whole "designed for hazard zone" thing is bullshit, and Ralph is fooling no one with that. The sole goal of the specialist system is to emulate warzone's incredible success. They've literally copied the operator system from CoD. Designed for hazard zone lmao yeah okay.
I have to disagree with the portal mode disproving the monetization theory - portal is the perfect mode to monetize with DLC addons. Sweet nostalgia bux for EA, they'd be stupid not to sell a "Battlefield 2 Special Forces pack" or "Battlefield Vietnam pack" or sell additional map packs for this mode.
@@jd-gb2kp I think the reason is because Battlefield games from Bad Company 2 and beyond were built with the frostbite engine, while the older titles were not.
Honestly 2142 had turrets, active camo, energy shields, magnet and emp mines, recon\shooting drones, but they weren't as obnoxious as something I saw these specialists use.
2142 perfectly utilised the 'rock-paper-scissors' format - nothing was too op and everything had a counter. Also, every gadget helped team-play... unlike specialists. BF2142 is still my favourite of the series.
It blows my mind how Battlefield manages to never capitalize on CoD's shortcomings. This year would've been the perfect year to capitalize and gain traction on the "war" between the titles, but yet again here we are. Here's to hoping they fix a lot of the problems mentioned!
That is because one game cannot capitalise on the other without alienating their own community in the process because they are, in fact, different games with somewhat different appeal.
@@aidancloke4398 no. Cod Vanguard is the same recycled game. If 2042 was not as buggy as it is, and if the game was balanced, it would be much better than COD because people are going to want to play a different game
I have played BF2, yes, 2004 BF2 mod Project Reality, 100v100. There is videos on YT. It worked just fine (minus some UI issues). Albeit the game soon became unplayable above 200 players due to netcode strain, we tested the breaking point and i believe it was well above 400 clients before the server crashed. 15 years later, it is used as a marketing gimmick and on top of that, it doesnt even work properly.
@@shitstain001 was the same for every other reviewer out there- they all reviewed it on PC and all loved it there, but they've learnt their lesson as have we all
@@Neoyugi Nope but you needed to have at the very least 8 virtual cores (4 physical cores with hyperthreading). Now even systems with 16 (!) physical cores seem to struggle. Apparently they now focused on single core clock speed just right in time when all new processors go into breadth (more cores) instead of into depth (higher clock count). Gg DICE, gg.
@@walker2006au Battlefield V at launch (and for about the whole first year) was way worse with its progression system broken because all your weapon unlocks never unlocking cause they had the stupid idea of basically mailing items to your account every time rather than just tracking XP to unlock. With all the data loss the servers were experiencing your items would get “stuck” in the sending pipeline. Also BFV had issues with progress not updating if you played multiple on a server (also for the whole first year).
Playing 2042 feels like playing CoDMW19’s mode, Ground War, with the gameplay of Warzone, with the destructible environment and graphics of BFV. I do not feel like I am playing a Battlefield game. The main selling point for BF2042 as of now is BF Portal, 100%. Nothing else in my opinion.
It doesn't have nearly the amount of destructible environments that bfv has sadly. This game is a huge let down and doesn't even feel like a battlefield game. So many features were cut and it seems like they scraped everything they had learned over all previous titles in order to pander to a wider audience. After 15 years of being a huge fan of this series, I think it it's time to admit that it will most likely never be the same as it was.
My entire outlook on Battlefield 2042 has been the same through all the previews and this basically confirmed it: Battlefield 2042 is only worth it for Portal, that way I can replay BC2 with a full player base and bask in nostalgia
Portal wont even be that great, will only have a few maps that are thematic to the era you pick.... or all old maps from older games that we played before. Otherwise they will have to make loads of maps with different assets from WW2 and BC2 so my guess is that it wont be worth 70bucks.
Which is odd because the numbers that were posted on reddit show a pretty massive improvement on newer 3000 series cards. especially cards like the 3060.
@@Xanthira222 definitely seems it depends a lot on the person, Lossy was saying how at high settings at 1440p on a 3080 and was getting over 100 fps depending on map, like some maps he was getting over 150 and others he was getting like 70, hopefully the day 1 patch (the launch day patch) will help a bit
Remember that every BF beta ran better than the final product. BF3, BF4, BF1 and BFV. So I have very very low expectations for the release of this game.
@@Youllpayforthat I mean aside from the lack of content and bad hit reg and hover crafts and armor being a thing along with no class identity anymore and half of the weapon attachments being the exact same lol
"When you try to be everything, you essentially become nothing good" Watching your really nice Review here, I remembered this quote from Josh Strife Hayes and it seems like that is the hard reality of this battlefield. They try to make a battlefield using battle Royale mechanics, with the ambition of being bigger than previous battlefields, while that wasn't needed in the first place. Thank you for mentioning the excellent Battlefield 1 and the almost perfect Hunt: Showdown once again. Thank you for your content.
Battlefield 1 was amazing..the cream..cinematic feels, emotion, gameplay, music..feeling of gritty war..it was the best..now this new one will run for a few years..but it's a waste of space on shelves..has no identity and is a money grab at best..heck vanguard feels more entertaining
@@RipperDoc97 indeed. I simply can't forget the music that elevated this really impressive experience towards true excellence. It was an occasionally flawed game but it was the best feeling I ever had with first person shooters.
“No one got access to console review codes” Aight, all I needed to know lol. I stayed away from Cyberpunk because I had a bad feeling about that, and turned out to be right. Trusting my gut on this one too.
I’m playing on PS5. Other than the occasional frame hitch, I’ve had a good experience. No clue how last gen will handle the load however, but on a next gen console it’s playing very well.
@@D5RUclips Sure wish Sony would push that VRR update out already 😐 I have a Series X and PS5, but I prefer to buy my games on PS5 especially because of the DualSense.
I'm concerned about this after DICE abandoned Battlefield V so quickly and never completed their planned DLC and roadmap. If this launch goes badly, I have no confidence that they'll stick around to support the game and do the work that needs to be done to get it into a better state.
Exactly why im not getting this game and why im shocked people were so hyped for this. Battlefield 5 was just a reskin of battlefield 1 but worse in alot of ways and they dropped the game after like a year. Abandoned it entirely. Now we got a new game coming out, that looks like a reskin of like battlefield 4 but slightly more futuristic. And the early reviews are not shockingly, bad. If they havent been able to make a solid battlefield game the last 1 or 2 installations what made people think this was gonna be it .
They also made a lot of questionable changes in bfv like: random recoil, ttk changes that made weapons worse at range and made enemies bullet-sponges, they didn't made you able ads with MMGs and AMRs and they were even considering adding armour to multiplayer at some point, I love bfv but it's sad how DICE didn't care for this game and just treated it as a game to launch between 1 and 2042
If I remember correctly EA actually dropped support for BFV and Battlefront 2 at the same time because they made the devs to work on a new project which I presume was 2042
@@livered7813 To be fair, if you could ads with MMGs they'd be unstoppable. I shit stomp everyone with the MG42 as is. But, I agree with everything else.
Battlefield: Identity Crisis Hazard Zone's going to be as much of a success as Firestorm was. Can't wait to see them course correct once the Specialists nonsense really starts backfiring. Saying that DICE has lost its way would be an understatement. Portal may be its only saving grace but i have no intention of early adopting this. It just not enough. It clearly need a lot more time in the oven. Like you said. Maybe a year from now. If it's not riddled with cheaters.
That's if EA doesn't pull development money like they did with BF5. EA pulled the rug out from dev teams for what what supposed to be the last push for content that was promised as a "live service" for BF5, which remember, was EA's greatest idea of the time... Once interest is lost, the money investment goes to the newest idea. I hate to agree that inventing in a sinking ship is a good way to burn money.
@@alanalb1449 yeah even on next gen. Ik they can handle much more then what the PS4 and Xbox one can but this game is way bigger then any battlefield game we’ve got and it’s way too ambitious for dice and EA. Throwing 128 people into an EA server is bound to cause issues.
I love that even though you are critical you are ultimately rooting for the game to succeed and arent just bashing for hater clicks. Keep up the great work skill up.
@@jaypeterman9721 he probably played on a more optimised version of the game and only got to experience the good parts of it. After all, CDPR only let him review cyberpunk on PC instead of the mess on console.
@@benklein8802 he actually did and till this day still has the review up at least Yong yea took his shit down and apologized I love skill up but that's the one huge shit stain on his YT career for me
You can tell the game has some Apex/CoD'ish vibe to it. upper management liked the release of CoD, plus games trend with the specialists thing. therefore EA wants to attract players coming from other games to BF (that's a risky strategy, you might end up with players moving from BF to other fps games since BF lost it's core game style). You can also tell the game is rushed by at least 6 months. The game distanced itself from the original and the simplicity of BF and it only kept the name. too many buttons to press each with different ability. I'm afraid the game might end like MoH.
I totally agree and the guns all shoot like Lazer beams as if it were Cod, the guns have no character to them. I won't be buying this garbage, this game has lost its identity.
That's exactly what happened to me: I'm moving from B2042 to Halo Infinite Multiplayer because there's a lot of things done wrong, and in first place, in my opinion, is the movement system. I LOVE B1 and BV for the movement, the way running and crouching feels. BV feel a little parkour sometimes. Both feel like your are playing a very articulated soldier and a little more heavier. B2042 just got rid of it. I'm agree with the lack of team play and the silly and cheap the specialist system is, but movement was a point of no return for me.
A new triple A title running smoothly with the amount of financial growth the industry has experienced in the last decade leaves no excuse for a game like this to be released and accepted as a proper release, it’s completely and utterly disgusting and I wish I wasn’t alive to see the last 6 years of gaming
@@dillonn3918 Well, don't say you wish you weren't alive. There's many that aren't now to experience what we have. But I agree with the first half of your comment. There's no excuses.
To be fair, Halo is much less demanding in terms of player count and graphics and map size and detail. Not a knock on Halo I love that game but it’s not a very fair comparison 👍🏻
The specialists killed my hype completely when they got announced. It doesn't fit battlefield and I begin to see how gaming disregards my generation as a focus slowly but surely the further I get to the 30.
I found a way around it actually lol, if you play someone like Dozer who has a heavily infantry based gadget, you can make ALL of the custom classes you'd like. So say you can have an Assault, Medic, Engineer, Recon, Support etc.
I really like what you're saying about immersion not necessarily being linked to realism. That's also my problem with BF2042. I think the game would be a lot more immersive if they had cut out the whole "nopat" or expat thing and removed the specialists. Because it's a near future setting I don't mind stuff like the sentry turret, grapple gun and even the wallhack thing, but I hate that they are locked behind these ridiculous "specialists". It makes no sense to have a game mode with 128 players be occupied by a dozen specialists, it completely destroys any sense of immersion knowing that there is probably 30 Boris' running around on the battlefield, 18 Sundance's and so on. That should've been replaced with Russian, Chinese and American grunts. It's much easier to believe a bunch of Russian grunts in 2042 would be carrying sentry guns to the frontline, whilst American grunts are using hyper advanced scanners to detect infantry through walls. It would also be more immersive in my opinion, to get to decide the sex and outfit of my character: I hate that if I want to use Sundance's wingsuit, I have to be this black woman wearing a beanie, or that if I wanna call in a resupply station, I have to look like a civilian with a backpack (seriously, Angel looks more like a guy working in IT than he does a soldier). I think that's my biggest issue as well, look at Halo Infinite, they let you customize your own Spartan that fits into the Halo universe, I want to do the same thing for Battlefield, I want to make a soldier that looks like he belongs in a warzone and way too many of the operators don't look like that, most of them don't even have a helmet. Irish is probably the closest one, Dozer is up there too but that gasmask is ridiculous, trust me, I work in a Chemical Biological Radiological Nuclear (CBRN) army unit, and fighting with a gasmask on is beyond difficult. I really miss the Battlefield 3 and especially 4's character models, they looked great and it was easy to tell if someone was a medic, engineer, support or recon way before you pressed the spotting button. More importantly, they looked like soldiers in an army, ready to fight in global conflict. Specialists looks like a teenager's idea of how they would go to war, "yeah, if I was SEAL team 6 I would've just used a wingsuit to fly right through the windows and killed Bin Laden with an SMG lol... What? Body armor? Helmets? I'm just gonna wear something tactical... like a black beanie!".
I kinda liked how specialists worked in BF1, limited amount of players could be one and the kits would spawn on certain areas on the map, including the pilot, horse rider etc. And yeah, have to agree the specialists looks way to tacticool, R6 Siege vibes from that shit.
Considering we have specialist; there look; and their end of round one liners; Fortnite is having a bigger influence on battlefield then many people would like to admit.
@@michaellangan5037 because Battlefield isn't a hero shooter, and never has been. If you want cartoony and overscaled action, play Overwatch then. That's not an insult, it is simply a fact.
Sounds to me like the game is CPU bottlenecked with 128 players, so the GPU performance ceases to have any effect once you hit 70-80fps and its the CPU work causing the instability, given your FPS is so much better with 32 players.
This is definitely the case, went from 2700x to 5600x and got 15FPS in Warzone and in BF5(Firestorm) both. Huge MP games are the place where CPU power is needed. And if you don´t get constant FPS you don´t blame game but CAP it on MIN FPS for smooth gameplay. In MP high AVG FPS=\= Best experience
But why would they create a game that has 128 player battles and just assume everyone that plays the game has some godly cpu? Developer design choices blow my mind sometime.
As a Battlefield veteran and having played 2042 for about 6 hrs from launch, I'm lost... There is no class identity anymore, anyone can do anything. I loved the unique identities in the Battlefield games (medic, recon, support and assault). Now you won't have a clue who is doing what and have to pray to the RNG gods that someone is carrying a medical kit or ammo crate in your assault team / squad. Portal is OK... it's great that you can play the old content again with new skins.... But its exactly that.... Recycled content with a new skin. Hopefully it will grow on me. The gunplay doesn't feel anywhere near as smooth as BF1 / BFV currently which is also a concern. However I am having fun.... But whether I sink hundreds of hours in like previous titles is yet to be seen.
My disappointment exactly, I don't know about other people, but I don't want to play bf3/4 for another 10 years. I had hoped the 2042's base experience was going to live up to the older titles with portal as a nice addition to re-experience the older games instead of having recycled content as the best thing in the game. A shame really.
I know that people who worked on older BF games are gone. I know times changed and all what matters now is money. I know games now just copy paste each other. BUT After that amazing atmosphere from BF1, where you felt you really are in a war, in a battlefield, after that very good fortification system from BF5, gunplay, movement, after you cancelled Battlefront 2 and had 5 ( if I'm not wrong ) studios to work on this game, you give us, THIS ? Lifeless maps, poor gunplay, no emption, no atmosphere, almost no destruction, no class system, ugly looking maps, empty maps, no different play modes. This isn't battlefield, is a combination of warzone and overwatch and it's disappointing. We've waited all these years for THIS ?
@@catalinmihailescu wow, it's almost as if they slapped this game together in 2/3 years and that throwing more people onto a project doesn't necessarily mean quality. I jest but this game along with Vanguard are soulless cash grabs, with BF exclusively pulling on nostalgia of games 6-10+ years old. Assume this game is possibly taking the games as a service model, expect a lot of filler and waiting months for basic features.
@@BetaBreaking you're right. Let's not forget that battlefield it's kinda known for being good to play, only if you wait few months after release, so they can make it work right. Still, these companies have tons of money, but they can't provide a working project from the day 1. And yes, the majority of franchises, these days they carry only their name and not the soul of good games they used to be. Let's be honest, if this game had other name, the majority of people would skip it. Same as cod vanguard.
Its kinda sad that the best part of the game seems to be the bit where they basically let you play the old games (portal). I think EA needs a series of executive level Seppukus for any kind of major change to happen. Gaming has become so stale these days that the only thing I am even hyped for at the moment is Elden Ring, and that's basically just Dark Souls: Breath of the Wild.
Gaming is trash. Ive been playing enlisted, gta trilogy & saints row 2. I just cant stomach most new games because they are either half ass released or sweat fests. This BF never looked good and the beta was generally the game. Dice EA knew this game was shit lol, now all you see online is schills and fan boys trying their best to spin this smh
Thanks for the Hunt comparison! Such an underappreciated game that has some of the best audio design for a pvp shooter. You're spot on when it comes to knowing the map and the mechanics to that game, you can win a match with a free hunter against a fully kitted team if you are a good shot and know how to position yourself.
Hunt is a strange one for me, I hate playing it, but I love watching it, and I hate watching people play games, I'm an old grouch when it comes to streamers and streaming as a whole. Sucks to suck I guess. :D
@@gs8494 it’s a nightmare on console because of no aim assist and the ultra campy playstyle. On PC I’ve heard it’s MUCH faster paced and more enjoyable. I’m way too impatient to just camp in a house for half an hour just to die to some mine or something.
@@MrGoldenGuitar Ah shoot, didn’t realize that’s what it was like on console, that definitely would taint my experience. On PC it’s got a good tempo and you won’t get far if you just camp in a building, plus where’s the fun in that haha. Just gotta throw consumables in buildings like flashbombs or dynamite if you know someone is in there.
@@pronto7362 it’s effects everybody eventually because the more people pre order without proof of functional game on launch, the more publishers continue releasing broken games day one because people would already have bought it anyways before release just off hype.
"We have to cross this massive expanse of no man's land, and the enemy had already dug in" Ah yes, a breakthrough staple. Why the fuck does DICE think this is fun and keep doing it each time they do breakthrough? God I miss Rush.
Thanks for this. The bots and the specialists really make this unappealing to me, and I'm just glad that a major reviewer is telling that story. If I could purchase Portal as a standalone I'd probably do that. I guess I'll keep an eye on this one. If they'd just make Conquest and All Out Warfare with Specialists a separate game mode, and then make the classic style with classes its own game mode, that'd be fine. Everyone would abandon the Specialist mode and that'd be that.
Finally Skill Up addresses one of my biggest pet peeves with his content, thank you for mentioning which CPU the GPUs were paired with, mentioning the CPU makes a huge difference for people like me and it always annoyed me how only the GPU was mentioned as if it was the only part on the PC that mattered for performance. Please continue mentioning the CPU in future videos, and again thank you!
the problems he has sounds like its a CPU related issue rather than graphics card. DLSS works well when you are heavily gpu limited but does hardly anything when cpu limited.
@@imo098765 Pretty much, reminds me of planetside 2, which was a CPU heavy game due to the fact you could have hundreds of players going at once. I think battlefield is kinda having the same issue adjusting to having up to 120+ players on a single map now.
Yeah, you see quite a few people gloss over the CPU, which can be very important in regards to performance, especially with CPU intensive games. Now if only he'd share his ram, which can also affect performance to a variable degree.
@@SekiberiusWelkesh You people are acting like he doesn't have basically the best AMD cpu and Nvidia GPU money can buy. It's irrelevant. No one has better pretty much. I have a 10850k and I'm scared to buy BF 2042 because even though he said it seems more optimized for 10 series cards and I have a 1080ti I need over 100 FPS in my Battlefield games to get the smoothness I expect from it.
@@mjay6245 you will be fine i have same cpu as you these games are heavy on cpu and our i9 is more than enough for the game. The 1080ti is still a very good card!
This game has no content whatsoever, barely any weapons, too much chaos that you don't even know what to do and barely any teamwork. So far I regret buying this game.
Shit, bro, my wife got this for me as a surprise as I am a huge BF fan. She got the digital gold version so I could play early....so I don't even have a disc I can break or return to Gamestop for the 5 bucks in store credit they'd likely give me, anything would be better than playing this game. It is so fn bad.
@@SkunkLifeMedia I feel you bro, this game is lacking on content like crazy. Hazard zone sucks, only 2 modes in all out warfare, specialists are garbage, no real Russian or American military, just the specialists, I can go on and on lmao. I literally bought crysis trilogy remastered to get me through the holidays.
I totally know what you mean by the chaos, previous battlefield games were chaotic but I always had a clue what was going on, it just seemed like a total mess of random shit when I played the beta.
@@OneLeggyBoy This is why they added Portal. Portal still has the OG class system. I'm not a big BF fan anymore, and I wasn't planning on buying this, but if I do in the future. I'm putting all that game time into Portal.
This game not having a scoreboard is making me reconsider purchasing it. I play FPS games to compete with other players. Eliminating the scoreboard to where I can't see where I rank among other players in a match gives me no motivation to play.
The reason for this is that bad players will ragequit if they realize they're not topfragging. Every decision made in this game was designed such that EA can profit off of the lowest common denominator. This is exactly the same reason Black Ops Cold War doesn't show you your K/D in team deathmatch.
I would argue monetisation still is their biggest concern - Portal seems to be a way to incentivise a purchase of the game to people who aren't a fan of specialists in main multiplayer, which certainly were in for money. Really hope the game is good, but right now I just can't trust Dice or EA.
@@angelreyes8714 Exactly. Older titles are where basically all of the core community is, and Dice and EA make no money from these older players who have been playing games like BF4 and 3 since launch. Seems to me they are desperate to get them on the newer games since non BF players don't tend to stick around long term
They’re a business. No shit their end game is to monetize the game the best way they can. It’s just about finding that sweet spot that isn’t overboard like their fuck up with Battlefront 2.
Loving your honesty! Some things I think need to be implemented or improved: - AI doesn't offer any challenge - revive mechanic is still static - still no quickchat?? - audio still feels off
Change the audio mix to War Tapes it’s better than all the other options still doesn’t have that specific punch you’re looking for but definitely better than the other audio mixes. It’s near perfect in Portal.
It seems to me, and from my testing on the beta that bf 2042 is EXTREMELY bound to cpu performance, it doesnt matter if you have a 1080ti or a 3090. If you dont have latest and greatest cpus you will not notice a difference, and i bet you that if you enable graphs and performance metrics if you compare your 2080 ti and 3090 with the same cpu at lets say 1080p, you will get identical performance and both gpus being under utilized. Thats why in hazard zone you get better performance, less players less stuff to calculate more cpu power to drive your frames. In my case during the beta with a 5600x and a 2070 super i got 90 ~110 fps consistenly.
I would agree. I have had trouble getting a newer GPU. My build currently has a well binned 5800X with a good stable OC and a 1070ti. I seem to have ran the beta much better than many with their 3080's and beyond.
@@TheHipClip well historically battlefield always was a cpu hog, but the fact that they added 128 players really doesnt help, for me its a plus since i can run a minimum average of 80. But for many it will be a huge downgrade to performance especially since maps are huge and the playerbase is spread out, essentially nullifying it while keeping the performance negatives. But hey personally played a shit ton of planetside 2 with 30 fps and similar battles of 100 players in the same spot. So kinda used to this already and i can say its pretty damn fun. (the battles , not the 30 fps.)
@@incediumignis Totally forgot about Planetside 2 :) fun times. But I think with DLSS and top of the line hardware games should run 1440p 144Hz at Ultra, if you spend $4000.
Everyone: BF 2042 will be ready in a year. EA: Everything is working as intended, just like it was when Anthem launched. BF 2042 will launch next week Tuesday once we've ramped up the monetization. Edit for typo
@@EnglishTomm I don't blame you. For the record, I still hope the best for the game. It sucks that it doesn't seem to be optimized well. But had to throw a joke in here to lighten the mood a little. In the end, it seems to be more of a wait and see title to me.
I believe the 128 player performance losses are cpu bound, would make sense when not even lowering the graphics settings changes fps. This has to be tested of course but this would be the simplest reason for good performance on some rigs and bad performance on others.
Yes CPU limited indeed. But here's the kicker. "Back in the day" in 2003 .. Planetside got released on PC. It had 300 people on 1 map. Three-hundred-people on one map. And there were several maps running concurrently on the same server, each with a max pop of 300. ( you could go to a giant portal to take you to a different map to continue the fight there, but it was concurrent cause you can see what's happening on the other large maps and/or coordinate with your team mates there) And yes there were really that many people back in the day of that game. This was at a time where the fastest CPU you could buy was a Pentium 4 on the Intel side, and the 3200+ on the side. 1 Core, 1 thread for AMD, 1 core, 2 threads (HT) for Intel. I had the AMD , and it ran this on max settings just fine.
i subscribed to you in the days of the division 1 when you did guides on stats, and you have evolved into the most in depth reviewer of them all, i appreciate every video you make!
The Dice team could still have been allowed to make their little portal love letter to battlefield while also designing the rest of the game and its systems around being heavily monetized. Just because 1 game mode out of 5 isn't heavily monetized doesn't mean the other 4 won't be.
Yip so glad this guy does these well informed videos. Love battlefield but definitely not putting down full money on this. Looking forward to his full review
Battlefield without classes is like dark souls without the bosses. It's a fundamental part of the gamr and idk what brought them to remove it other then change for the sake of it. Honestly, it they kept specialists to the hazard zone and brought back classes for the other modes, I think that would go a long way in making the game feel like Battlefield again
That would be 1. Infantry vehicle combat 2.large maps 3.large playerbase If it aint got those, it aint a battlefield game, if you say it's a core element, you need to be educated
@@ranimdude That's your baseless and uneducated idea of teamwork in Battlefield. Battlefield uses a class system where each has their unique role to take the objective together using those unique gadgets given in each role
It just wasn't succeeding. It was all about their chemistry together, with Ralph gone, gone was the chemistry. It was about Ralph's knowledge and experience VS Sam's simplistic noobiness :D So you got interesting viewpoints with funny memes and hillarious interactions. Now you get none of that. It's sad because it was my favorite channel for a period.
@@martincerny3294 Even I cant deny that after Ralph left I stopped watching their videos all the time and went back to watch epic blunders like anthem and fallout 76, but now I miss Sam and I still want videos from him. Or at least know what happened from the duo themselves?
Given that the specialists have an assigned class, hopefully at some point they'll bring in equipment restrictions and actually work the specialists into a part of the classes rather than replacing them.
If they reskinned specialists as class specialisations, put generic class skins over them, and made gadget restrictions, the game would be a lot more healthy/well-received.
This is a very fair & accurate review. As a hard core BFBC2/BF3 and BF4 player ( i played but did not enjoy BF1 and BF5), would summarize this first week of pre-order/EA play as essentially a real beta test and we're seeing what i'd expect from a real beta. The official "beta" was really an early alpha test. I am enjoying the game quite a bit but admittedly I'm a big Battlefielder and I am also always playing with a 4 man squad of longtime friends & BF3/BF4 clan mates. THat means that i am still having fun amidst the myriad of issues. I am telling everyone i know that i'm enjoying the game but advising that they should hold off till things stabilize. Rubberbanding can get really bad at times during conquest matches. Sometimes we would spawn into maps with no kits available and no weapon attachments were unlocked. We also encountered matches where we were unable to deploy into the game. At least 2 times we selected breakthrough on the new maps but got thrown into portal matches (twice on Arica Harbor). the "deploy" selection options were a nightmare...my success rate for deploying either on a teammate or flag was 50%. They need to better highlight who you're spawning on. They need to disable the friends footsteps or tone them down. There is more. Fun game but lots to get worked, definitely not a launch purchase. If this is like Bf4, it'll take DICE about 6 months to get things ironed out and then it'll be a good purchase.
You need to learn the difference between developers and publishers and the differences between the leads and CEOs and the people who actually make everything.
"The performance on pc is much worse in the pc" "The performance on two pc which is on 2080Ti and RTX 3090 are not a great news." Oh shit. *Sweating in years old hardware*
Nvidia's gameready driver hasn't released so that might help. Also it seems like he is hitting a cpu bottleneck since DLSS isn't helping. The 3950x isn't very good for gaming, even the 5600x destroys it.
@@trignite That's actually a fair point. The game-ready driver should offer better performance, although it's hard to say by how much. Also, I'd forgotten that the 5000 series has better single-core performance - that probably does make a decent difference, too.
This already has such a "Million patches on day 1" vibe just from everything you said in your review. Hard skip till I see actual user review cause from what I get they basically tied one arm behind your back while you were trying to review it, very sus.
I love your content. I especially love that you give a very detailed summary that's roughly 5 minutes. I can leave and be completely satisfied that what I clicked on is what I got. But the real treat is the remaining 30ish minutes. It's like when a person who enjoys good food, takes the time to learn all the parts to make it.
I wish major studios would just take the time to release a finished polished product at LAUNCH. Live service is great to keep games alive and fresh but it also gave modern devs a lot of slack to “fix it later”
My hope is that Halo Infinite shows the industry that delaying a game and listening to player feedback, coupled with a solid release (hoping), is worth it. Halo: Infinite js setting itself up to be a return to form for Halo, and a juggernaut of "hey look how good our _HALO_ game is" (not a generic sci-fi game trend follower).
The specialist system was the nail in the coffin for me sadly. Fingers crossed Halo Infinite doesn't let me down. Until then I've been playing Enlisted, Insurgency, and Chivalry.
try hell let loose. wildly differs than games you've been playing and it'll take sometimes before it clicks. but i assure you, HLL is one of my highlight of gaming in 2021.
@@propane593 it's still got a healty playerbase the latest update adds a 1 life mode and new weapons and cosmetics. Still waiting for them to release the horse update but probably won't see that until early 2022.
BF2042 beta was the nail in the coffin and drove me to play enlisted and i cant lie, ive been enjoying that game more. I think the BF title is dead at this point for me
@@Madmongul It's also incredibly janky, but it's the fun kind of janky lmao, not the painful kind like 2042 Overall though its been a little tough to get used to, but I'm enjoying it
It will never not amaze me how such an experienced studio in the realm of first person multiplayer shooters is still able to get the fundamentals that wrong… not even speaking of the absolutely atrocious performance „optimization“.
How is the levelution in this game? I've heard almost nobody talk about it, and the map destruction is one of my favorite things about the other games.
Non existent like the previos comment said, buildings have almost no destructible walls, just played in early access, Portal is truly the only good thing
Don't hold back or sugarcoat it. You aren't them but I'm tired of reviewers that only mention mostly good things & rate it highly. Plenty of people spoke about what was systematically wrong in the beta, they chose not to delay & if it's not up to standard then they don't deserve praise. Also one 'portal' mode isn't worth $70+. I feel a lot of 'EA game changers' (i.e RUclips advertiser's) are going to overhype things like Portal.
Yes Portal mode is worth it lol. Portal Mode is like 50x the size of CoD, and the base BF2042 game. Portal IS the entire game as far as I am concerned.
yeh reviews should be more honest. A good example is horizon 5 that just launched, it is absolutly fantastic but the online mode is broken and the graphics options dosent seem to work on pc but not many reviews mention that
@@limpis2823 "the graphics options dosent seem to work on pc" I noticed this too and thought I was going crazy until Digital Foundry covered the PC port
@@xcalium9346 exactly! The ultra settings looks like low settings so something is definitely wrong. They are dropping a patch today if they haven't done so already so fingers crossed!
Idk, it's weird imo. It does look great but feel that Portals success would feel kinda badly ironic. If a level designer used by the consumer is more successful than the base game then what have we come to? Yeah, we've got a great product - but that's because we have to make it ourselves? Yes, at its base it offers you remastered content which we all happily except but idk... its just strange if it comes out as the prize of 2042.
The specialists haven't bugged me as much as I thought they might, but the game still feels really underwhelming. The maps feel like this generic near-future vibe with no soul, and the destruction seems much poorer here than previous titles. It's probably the least immersed I have felt in a Battlefield game. The 10-hour trial was enough for me to realise I am better off waiting for Halo Big Team Battle.
Man! I fkin love you so much. You don't flow with the current and say what people want to hear. You say what people should hear. No wonder I wait specifically for YOUR reveiws even though I could watch thousand others.
What are you talking about? At the moment it's the hot trend to shit on Vanguard and Battlefield like crazy. You barely find any good reviews of those games. Because both are shit. Only the shills will tell you what you want to hear. In which reality do you live in?
So I played the trial available on Xbox Series X, and I say; this needed to be a June/July 2022 release at the very least. Credit where credit is due; it performed WAY better than the Beta did, and was definitely more fun, at least for a bit. The maps other than Orbital were much better - I definitely enjoyed Manifest (the cargo container one) a good deal. That said, it still has MAJOR issues, and unlike Skillup, I'll come right out and say it - 2042 was DEFINITELY a Battle Royale with Hazard Zone as first, then adapted into a traditional Battlefield later when they realized it wasn't gonna work out. Hazard Zone is completely skippable and should've just been scrapped, because Hunt and Tarkov do everything it is trying to do, but better and with better takes on the idea. But all the design decisions, from how maps flow, how buildings are grouped together on many maps, how they're so basic and bare, how destruction works, Specialists and the loss of the class system to even the weapon customization system all scream "BATTLE ROYALE IDEAS" because they all make sense there and feel like they belong there, not in a Battlefield game. And all these non-Battlefield elements leave the game feeling like a weird mix of Warzone and Blackout's 50v50 mode, not Battlefield. But one thing I will say they did well above everything else; the weather. Not only does it look great, but goddamn do you FEEL it, especially if you're in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I agree. Whats your take on 'expedition-type' games like tarkov and hunt? Like what makes them good, and in what way could hazard zone be overhauled to match them?
@@michajagielski8381 hope you don’t mind me cutting in, but in my opinion, the reason Tarkov and hunt showdown work so well is because of how steadily paced, difficult, and detailed they are. Those games require careful movement, map knowledge, coordination, and patience. Battlefield’s gunplay, movement, and basic systems don’t lend themselves to slower paced exploration with bursts of tactical, unforgiving combat, and that’s because it works extremely well with huge, constant action. Try putting Tarkov gunplay into that sort of a game and you end up with squad, and put battlefield gunplay into A tarkov sort of game and well… it feels like it’s over too fast, and has long moments of low tension. Tarkov and hunt, you’re constantly on edge, always hyper aware because one mistake can get you killed in a second. The game is designed around that. Hazard seems to lack that tension, because it doesn’t feel like there’s any real threat, you’re just looking for the next fight. On top of that, there’s no real sense of progression, nothing to work towards. If they can find a solution to those two core problems, the lack of tension/progression, I think it has a *chance* of working out.
also age of empires they took in the player feedback to the alpha and went back to the drawing board and pushed release back for it. If EA had any sense they would have done the same and given us classes in conquest mode instead of this heroshooter crap.
I'm wondering when the straw will break the camel's back with BF. Seems like everyone loves them either cause the franchise pedigree or they're so anti-COD that they swing the other way and are super pro BF
When competition actually shows up to prove that there's an alternative. I've been enjoying Enlisted but it doesn't have the polish and marketability to sway most away from the established brand of Battlefield.
I like how they say cod are for kids, yet they are trashing the franchise like a kid. Thats why, you don't fanboy for anything, you will look stupid if u do
![I do not recommend: Atomic Heart (Review) [PC 4k]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/jXjq7zYCL-w/mqdefault.jpg)
![I do not recommend: Atomic Heart (Review) [PC 4k]](/img/tr.png)
The first 200 people to sign up to Brilliant will get 20% off their annual premium subscription. To learn more visit: brilliant.org/SkillUp/ . Thanks Brilliant for sponsoring the video.
This is a brilliant sponsor :)
Skill up, since dlss and graphical settings didn’t change much, means that the low FPS is CPU bound, not gpu bound.
@@chaosmirco exactly. The ryzen 3000 series is not the best cpu for gaming. If he had a 5000 series then I would be really concerned.
Hard pass
So the thing about Portal Mode... You can only use the logic editor in Team Death Match and Free-For-All which means you can't full customize weapons & gadget loadouts in Conquest/Conquest Large or Rush game modes. Classes are restricted to only have access to the gear that is available in that classes base game. This means Battlefield 3 classes can only use Battlefield 3 weapons and gear. The only way to circumvent this is with the logic editor which can't be used on Objective based game modes. This was done intentionally to restrict players from making custom games that compete with the default 2042 All Out Warfare mode.
"The best part of this game was the custom game mode where players could turn off all the new shit they added with this game."
And people will still buy this sad game and not listen to this Review
People really never learn
@@SaltyDerps I can assure you many many people won’t even mind and will have a fantastic time playing this. All these issues would drive me nuts but… most people will just bag this up on their last gen console and enjoy it and not care at all. Nothing to learn, really.
@@SaltyDerps And people will still pre-order it and have fun playing
People really never learn
this perfectly sums up why im not buying this game
@@SaltyDerps do you really get triggered when people have different opinions than u
This feels like two different teams were working on the same game, one focused on the heart of the game series (Portal) and the other focused on doing something that business people would be satisfied with (ie, specialists, BR-like game modes and whatnot).
That's exactly what happened and they're very open about this. The team working on Portal only had ~14 months (I think) to get it into its current state
Absolutely, at least we got Portal though
As soon as portal gets progression it’s going to be the only game I play
Did you hear they built portal in roughly a year?
It was two different teams lol
“Game has a lot of promise but has a lot of issues so it’s better to wait”
Ah a battlefield classic then.
That's how you know this battlefield will be good
Ah shit, here we go again
@@nghtmar3i.v443 I pray...actually, we all pray that it will
The problem is, EA gave BF V a year and a half
How long would they give 2042?
@@henryhamilton4087 ye it's kinda sad about battlefield 5. I just bought it recently and I think it's an amazing game that could have been an all-time battlefield great with a bit more time. Guess I'll just keep playing bf5 until 2042 is better.
Whenever they hide console gameplay, we should all be worried.
nah, not all, only the console peasantry needs to be worried.
@@rixgaming9989 Leave the basement please, your mom and dad are worried about you
@@rixgaming9989 you say that but console is actually better optimized lmao
@@smitty6480 what? What doy ou know that no one else does? xD
Number one red flag
This game feels like it's developed by new devs that have never played a Battlefield game before. Portal is the only thing that I really enjoyed when playing.
Think that was their plan. Portal is to keep the actual bf players happy and the rest, for idiots that fly with suits and hack walls.
But even that doesn’t do it for me. I barely have any cause to play with it. Two BF 3 maps (not even the most popular maps) For instance. Ok so what…
I’m disappointed in the game, very disappointed
portal isn't even that good honestly. Bunch of bugs due to trying to re-create old games and old mechanics in a new engine with different features. Also only 2 maps per game, limited guns, overcrowded maps, etc. I'd rather they just remaster the old games then try to tack on hollow copies.
This game looks to much like Cod Warzone from the movement mechanics and the way the guns handle, all the guns shoot like lazer beams like in every cod game they have no character like in previous Battlefields, I won't be getting this garbage. This game has lost its identity.
This 💯💯💯
Battlefield 4 CTE was 7 years ago, and I cannot believe this is the product we've finally arrived at. The unintended stuff (bugs, performance issues, etc) isn't the deal breaker for me, because they'll fix that. What hurts my soul are all the countless ways BF2042 has regressed compared to past Battlefield titles. You can fill a BOOK with how many basic features we took for granted in past Battlefield games are straight-up absent in this game. The past 10+ years of community feedback and improvements through all the various Battlefield titles (UI, gunplay, map design, movement, HUD, squads, roles, etc) has all amounted to nothing. BF2042 is not a successor, it is a giant leap backwards full of regression and removal.
💯
I agree. I didn't cover that here because I did so in my beta impressions but you're spot on. This feels like a new IP, not the latest in a franchise with nearly two decades worth of history.
The most I hate about BF2042 is that it looks and feels like a CoD clone. Gameplay wise Battlefield tended to a be a bit slower, the guns more "realistic", now it looks like we're firing lasers with almost no recoil. And I don't know what to think about the specialist shit... I guess they wanted to follow the trend of games like Overwatch with heroes, and a backstory. Who gives a fuck about that? I want to be a noname soldier, not Harry McGuffin with his grappling hook.
@@verpeiler089 what about.......JIN SAKAI WITH HIS GRAPPLING HOOK!!??
Perfect comment - agree with you 💯
Beta:"ItS jUsT a bEtA"
At launch:"iTs jUsT WaItInG oN tHE uPdAtE"
Yeah, this is literally BF fanboys.
Day Oners are the actual beta testers.
@@fesoy1174 To be fair, that's basically every AAA game these days. I can't remember one I purchased that wasn't half-broken at release and needing big fixes and balance adjustments.
People need to understand that what developers and publishers peddle as a beta is hardly a beta. Most games' actual betas never see the light of day outside of NDA test groups. Also, people need to understand that even half a year is not that long time in game development when it comes to fixing major issues. Most likely if it is broken in the supposed beta, it will be broken or at best partially fixed in the release version. Public betas are just demos meant to stress test servers, more or less. Oh, and check what in-game items players like the most and then put those behind extra paywalls, just like in Ghost Recon Breakpoint.
publishers nowadays confuse "beta" with "demo" smh
Should have just released ‘battlefield: Portal’ as the new game.
for 30$ portal would sell like hotcakes... would the overhead not be lowered b/c most of the assets already exist. or would they need to make them all from the ground up? but if that were the case EA could sell other chunks of portal content as DLC packs and because of the lower portal price ppl would justify buying more than they really should.
Agreed and with added options for private servers and adjusting vehicle paramaters, like in Tanks only maps.
@@cyscosystar3507 A $30 game selling like hotcakes won't earn them hundreds of millions every quarter...cosmetics will.
It would’ve been excellent if the specialists were exclusive to hazard zone, while all out war had classes as usual.
You know what's the worst party is? The classes are there, bots HAVE the class system. And nobody has noticed that... 😂
Good idea and easy fix honestly. Makes too much sense to implement.
@@SentinelxPrime so disregard the entire garbage package and placing all your hopes on Portal. Sounds like copium.
@@thenetpagan it also exists in portal. Absolutely no excuse for specialists to exist
I will not support this. It's unacceptable... No single player campaign and no class system in conquest
The specialist are the worst change that could have been made. Just EA and Dice chasing trends.
I mean I was scratching my head the moment respawn the makers of Apex had their fingers in the developement
Meh looks like DICE just followed their work on Battlefront II, lots of specialist there but it works on star wars
Battlefield has never been about characters. When playing, you have always been just another soldier on the battlefield.
I think the specialists are unneccessary. They probably wanna push this idea so that they can sell more skins and such.
EA wants some of that lootbox and skins trend. Such a greedy company.
literally the opposite of what is right, it's supposed to be no name unknown soldiers dying by the millions not genderqueer identity people trading 4th wall breaking quips every couple of seconds
Worse how?
love me some "release first, deliver later" service games. Definitely learned from BF5. Definitely care about the community.
the cheater problem in bf5 was never fixed so i have no hope here lol
Definitely.
@@trevorn2969 what sucks is that if you buy on day one you get a buggy, in complete game.
If you wait a few months or a year, then the hackers have overrun the game by then 😭
@@badboygoodgirl so don't wait . I played it yeah there are bugs but it is battlefield it is beautiful. I mean pop in is just pop in so what a tree pops in a second later sometimes. Just play have fun
@@SocietyKilledTheUnicorn Youre right. Not my main language, sorry. Corrected it.
I'm so done with games launching incomplete and unfinished because they are live service games and will update post-launch.
Live service brought a lot of bad to gaming as well. You would think they would continue to make content packed products and expand them post launch instead of stripping all of it away and release them unfinished and barebones.
I don't understand how DICE made a game that took a big step away from the classic 64 player flow and gameplay AND introduced Specialists for a game that has a lot depending on it in terms of the franchise name and revival. AI add so many boring and lifeless experiences to the game. Feels like big scores don't meaning anything.
They had to add AI, because everyone knows all the real players are on portal. Everyone else has moved on 😞
Gamers are also to blame for the sorry state that the industry is in now. Every time a low quality AAA is released, they always have some excuse as to how it's okay.
Completely agree, its the worst thing for gaming ever
@@HDTDNOVIV We literally have idiots in the comments saying "y u care I bought shit game. I have fun"
Took the words right out of my mouth. I remember the good ol' days when your finished product was... yeah, your finished product. That was it. There's always this "hope" mechanic with gamers, especially those who pre-ordered something. You want to feel like you didn't waste your money. You want to feel like you didn't get screwed over. Welllllllllll...
Battlefield always had its own identity. You as a soldier, in a squad, picking a role and thrusted into an epic war. With the Operator system the identity is lost from other shooters. As a diehard battlefield fan, this game is a tough sell.
You're not alone. They're looking for any reason to start selling skins like COD, hopefully some people with Battlefield aren't that Goddamned stupid. But seeing as how they're basically pulling things from COD left and right, it doesn't look good.
@@castlesbard1547 It would’ve been cool if we were still soldiers and they could still add skins but they’re just changes in armor or camos kinda like battlefield 4. Where you’re still a solider but you can change camos. Rather then operator skins.
@@spoiledsalad1851
While I still think BF4 was the best in that regard. BF1 admittedly(in my honest opinion) had/has the best soldier designs.
While it wasn't great in balance, I believed BF1 was a step in a different direction(whether that's good or bad, I can't say for everyone). And I'm not going to talk about BFV, I feel that any rational person would agree that BFV was just garbage with hardly any redeeming qualities. A shame that the devs didn't seem to learn that in making 2042.
@@castlesbard1547 thats why i felt like they made 2 versions of the game tbh. the monetized version theyre slowly working towards(?) being 2042 and then the actual good part of the game that could be the answer being portal. i think if they really wanted to make a game to please they would just scrap the base game entirely because all i see is people buying the game exclusively for portal and wouldnt touch 2042 at all because of the specialists
@@scrotumscratcher2474
Definitely. The problem with that is people will end up giving them a free pass to just copy and paste old Battlefield maps and weapons all the while the new map(s) and weapons are *still* horribly balanced. One could argue that older weapons were still not balanced, but variations in the map allowed for different weapons to shine in different places. Some BF4 maps for example, I can't recall the names right now unfortunately.
Pulling a different game into this for an example. Destiny 2, had some decent map layouts, the issue was they couldn't balance weapons(or classes) to save their lives. That's why an SMG(D2 players know which one), and sniper rifles *DOMINATED* almost every single encounter for the longest of times. And for the most part, still do.
Definitely going to wait for a few months before picking this up, if I even do. The bugs are an issue, but the core gameplay decisions taken by Dice are a major roadblock. I think this specialist system is probably the worst thing Dice have implemented into a game, ever. They basically took an excellent system, gutted it, and replaced it with this trash so they can sell us more cosmetics. No thanks.
Agreed. The specialist system is a no go for me. If they sold the portal portion of it for just $15 or $20, I'd buy that. Until then I'll just keep playing BF1 which is an amazing game that runs flawlessly and is easily the best looking BF game.
I will wait and buy this second hand.
If you actually watched this video for 5min, you'd know that skill up refutes that claim. It seems the specialist system was designed purposely for the hazard zone. His main issue is the current TECHNICAL state and the fact they weren't given enough time with the game. So he is discouraging day 1 buy bit he clearly looks the core gameplay elements.
There also only 22 guns at launch and the rest are being given away in season events
@@blackcaesar8387 oh yeah, because EA is totally going to be restrained when it comes to monitization lmao. That whole "designed for hazard zone" thing is bullshit, and Ralph is fooling no one with that. The sole goal of the specialist system is to emulate warzone's incredible success. They've literally copied the operator system from CoD. Designed for hazard zone lmao yeah okay.
So basically everything DICE LA touched is great and the rest needs a least a year of development. Got it.
After how they fixed BF4 from it's ugly launch, it's no surprise seeing DICE LA doing quite well.
formerly known DICE LA, now they are called Ripple Effect Studios
@@wiz3404 Forever known by DICE LA to me, their new name is lame.
@@wiz3404 They will be handling 2042 and the next battlefield after release all the other studios will be headed back to their own projects.
That DICE LA will be fixing thank god.
I have to disagree with the portal mode disproving the monetization theory - portal is the perfect mode to monetize with DLC addons. Sweet nostalgia bux for EA, they'd be stupid not to sell a "Battlefield 2 Special Forces pack" or "Battlefield Vietnam pack" or sell additional map packs for this mode.
Didn't see BF2 in Portal and knew something was up.
Just think of the holiday packs they are going to sell in Portal mode haha. Just buy the older games instead!
This is so much gonna happen!
@@jd-gb2kp I think the reason is because Battlefield games from Bad Company 2 and beyond were built with the frostbite engine, while the older titles were not.
Battlefield Portal will be the free download and then you pay for content. That's 100% what's going on
Honestly 2142 had turrets, active camo, energy shields, magnet and emp mines, recon\shooting drones, but they weren't as obnoxious as something I saw these specialists use.
2142 perfectly utilised the 'rock-paper-scissors' format - nothing was too op and everything had a counter. Also, every gadget helped team-play... unlike specialists. BF2142 is still my favourite of the series.
@UCyOXYrW1dv9-X8Cnce4BGkw we have the 2142 sequel. TITANFALL x))..
@@BloodyArchangelus Titanfall does NOT play like battlefield or are remotely close
@@pizzapositive8459 Yep, the closest we have is an indie game, Angels Fall First.
@@BloodyArchangelus No.
It blows my mind how Battlefield manages to never capitalize on CoD's shortcomings. This year would've been the perfect year to capitalize and gain traction on the "war" between the titles, but yet again here we are. Here's to hoping they fix a lot of the problems mentioned!
Good thing halo is coming out this year, seems to be the only one that isn’t a buggy mess going into launch
That is because one game cannot capitalise on the other without alienating their own community in the process because they are, in fact, different games with somewhat different appeal.
@@aidancloke4398 no. Cod Vanguard is the same recycled game. If 2042 was not as buggy as it is, and if the game was balanced, it would be much better than COD because people are going to want to play a different game
@@sketchmaster23 People play Cod and BF for separate reasons...
@@aidancloke4398 I'm hyped for halo. It'll be my first one ever since I always had a PlayStation
Goddamn it.
@Bzake if only it was delayed, but noooo.
It's one man's opinion, you may actually enjoy the game
@Bzake Infinitely Wrong
@@seanboyle7391 Infinitely Wrong
@Armando Aranda What? It's 1 man's opinion, you may enjoy the game
I was pretty scared when they announced 128 players. Its unfortunate that my fears ended up being realized. :(
128 players... you mean 64 people and 64 bots, because servers are gonna be abandoned a year from now if EA/DICE don't address the baked in problems.
I have played BF2, yes, 2004 BF2 mod Project Reality, 100v100. There is videos on YT. It worked just fine (minus some UI issues). Albeit the game soon became unplayable above 200 players due to netcode strain, we tested the breaking point and i believe it was well above 400 clients before the server crashed. 15 years later, it is used as a marketing gimmick and on top of that, it doesnt even work properly.
This is why I highly recommend and respect your channel. A ton of other reviewers wouldn't give us all this important and honest information.
Yeah but what about his cyberpunk review?
@@shitstain001 was the same for every other reviewer out there- they all reviewed it on PC and all loved it there, but they've learnt their lesson as have we all
Silk too
@@seahawk1579 yea pc is great
I strongly recommend SkillUp's channel (Review)
Man I can't wait till bf2042 comes out in november, next year. It's gonna be so good :D
😂😂
And then when it's fully functioning sometimes Q3 of 2023?
Hell yeah man. 10 year live service plan baby!
"this game is still not finished" -every single battlefield launch
Every Single game, the last 5-8 years
@@CALLOFDUTYGAMERist doom 2016 and eternal
Bad company was great right from the start
@@CALLOFDUTYGAMERist literally
@@kamil151 honestly true
The fact this game went from kinda hyped to absolutely dead in a little under 3 months is quite impressive.
Reminder everyone, "MULTI-BILLION dollar company"
And the same company who said "If you don't like the game, don't buy it"
Same company that also said they were scrapping the campaign to focus on the multiplayer 😕
I'll pick it up 6 month after release for 10 bucks..may be...
Amen. A worthy reminder. F**k E.A.
@@xxx-pliskin-sniper-xxx8538 yeah, it's like they don't learn, or want to learn at all
@@CrackyMcWestside I say avoid it honestly
Anyone that has played a battlefield the last decade would tell you that his was gonna be half baked at launch.
BFV was far more polished this then though and it still had issues.
@@walker2006au You're looking at BF5 with rose tinted glasses my friend, it was universally panned at launch for how poor optimized it was.
@@Neoyugi Maybe read what they said again. "It was far more polished than this". That doesn't imply it was a good game. Just better than 2042.
@@Neoyugi Nope but you needed to have at the very least 8 virtual cores (4 physical cores with hyperthreading). Now even systems with 16 (!) physical cores seem to struggle. Apparently they now focused on single core clock speed just right in time when all new processors go into breadth (more cores) instead of into depth (higher clock count). Gg DICE, gg.
@@walker2006au Battlefield V at launch (and for about the whole first year) was way worse with its progression system broken because all your weapon unlocks never unlocking cause they had the stupid idea of basically mailing items to your account every time rather than just tracking XP to unlock. With all the data loss the servers were experiencing your items would get “stuck” in the sending pipeline. Also BFV had issues with progress not updating if you played multiple on a server (also for the whole first year).
Skillup has the best enunciation of the word "good" after Emperor Palpatine.
GoOod
gUHdeh
This simply is one of the best YT comments I’ve ever seen.
Sorry, after?
his good ..is so good
Playing 2042 feels like playing CoDMW19’s mode, Ground War, with the gameplay of Warzone, with the destructible environment and graphics of BFV. I do not feel like I am playing a Battlefield game.
The main selling point for BF2042 as of now is BF Portal, 100%. Nothing else in my opinion.
It doesn't have nearly the amount of destructible environments that bfv has sadly. This game is a huge let down and doesn't even feel like a battlefield game. So many features were cut and it seems like they scraped everything they had learned over all previous titles in order to pander to a wider audience. After 15 years of being a huge fan of this series, I think it it's time to admit that it will most likely never be the same as it was.
My entire outlook on Battlefield 2042 has been the same through all the previews and this basically confirmed it: Battlefield 2042 is only worth it for Portal, that way I can replay BC2 with a full player base and bask in nostalgia
Portal wont even be that great, will only have a few maps that are thematic to the era you pick.... or all old maps from older games that we played before.
Otherwise they will have to make loads of maps with different assets from WW2 and BC2 so my guess is that it wont be worth 70bucks.
But the weapon in portal is really bad.
Looks like we're living in Portal lads, get stuck in
Looks like Halo is headed to be the MVP of fps this year... God I hope the full release slaps the beta was amazing!
I'm still sitting with my fingers crossed for Infinite, but God there's nothing else I'd like to see more than Halo back on top.
No chance.
@@leogets2006 with cod getting slammed and early thoughts on battlefield not being great I'd say there's certainly a chance.
And the best thing is that is f2p
@@antonioc.5778 deffo puts it at an advantage, seen as next gen copies of bf2042 and cod are £70.00. Bun that.
“Worse PC performance than in the beta.” Seeing as how my 980 can barely keep up with all low settings in the beta, sounds like I’m out!
@@All_Hail_Chael Thanks, Uncle Chael!
Even the 3000 series cards can't handle the game wtf
Which is odd because the numbers that were posted on reddit show a pretty massive improvement on newer 3000 series cards. especially cards like the 3060.
@@Xanthira222 definitely seems it depends a lot on the person, Lossy was saying how at high settings at 1440p on a 3080 and was getting over 100 fps depending on map, like some maps he was getting over 150 and others he was getting like 70, hopefully the day 1 patch (the launch day patch) will help a bit
Remember that every BF beta ran better than the final product. BF3, BF4, BF1 and BFV. So I have very very low expectations for the release of this game.
I think the biggest let down is how badly optimized the game is for PC like its actually crazy how bad it is.
It’s really buggy on Xbox one and ps4. It’s almost unplayable.
i dont think thats the biggest let down but yea lmfao
@@Youllpayforthat I mean aside from the lack of content and bad hit reg and hover crafts and armor being a thing along with no class identity anymore and half of the weapon attachments being the exact same lol
"When you try to be everything, you essentially become nothing good"
Watching your really nice Review here, I remembered this quote from Josh Strife Hayes and it seems like that is the hard reality of this battlefield.
They try to make a battlefield using battle Royale mechanics, with the ambition of being bigger than previous battlefields, while that wasn't needed in the first place.
Thank you for mentioning the excellent Battlefield 1 and the almost perfect Hunt: Showdown once again. Thank you for your content.
jack of all trades, master of none
Did dice make hunt?
@@tegredyfarms5880 Nope crytek
Battlefield 1 was amazing..the cream..cinematic feels, emotion, gameplay, music..feeling of gritty war..it was the best..now this new one will run for a few years..but it's a waste of space on shelves..has no identity and is a money grab at best..heck vanguard feels more entertaining
@@RipperDoc97 indeed. I simply can't forget the music that elevated this really impressive experience towards true excellence.
It was an occasionally flawed game but it was the best feeling I ever had with first person shooters.
“No one got access to console review codes”
Aight, all I needed to know lol. I stayed away from Cyberpunk because I had a bad feeling about that, and turned out to be right. Trusting my gut on this one too.
I’m playing on PS5. Other than the occasional frame hitch, I’ve had a good experience. No clue how last gen will handle the load however, but on a next gen console it’s playing very well.
@@D5RUclips Sure wish Sony would push that VRR update out already 😐 I have a Series X and PS5, but I prefer to buy my games on PS5 especially because of the DualSense.
That was for the old gen tho.
@@chargedbowl lot of people are still on old gen bud
@@natecheng5866 ikr, even if you can afford it you can't even find it
I'm concerned about this after DICE abandoned Battlefield V so quickly and never completed their planned DLC and roadmap. If this launch goes badly, I have no confidence that they'll stick around to support the game and do the work that needs to be done to get it into a better state.
basically any EA title thats not sports. Anthem-cough. SWBF-cough. MEA-cough :(
Exactly why im not getting this game and why im shocked people were so hyped for this. Battlefield 5 was just a reskin of battlefield 1 but worse in alot of ways and they dropped the game after like a year. Abandoned it entirely. Now we got a new game coming out, that looks like a reskin of like battlefield 4 but slightly more futuristic. And the early reviews are not shockingly, bad. If they havent been able to make a solid battlefield game the last 1 or 2 installations what made people think this was gonna be it .
They also made a lot of questionable changes in bfv like: random recoil, ttk changes that made weapons worse at range and made enemies bullet-sponges, they didn't made you able ads with MMGs and AMRs and they were even considering adding armour to multiplayer at some point, I love bfv but it's sad how DICE didn't care for this game and just treated it as a game to launch between 1 and 2042
If I remember correctly EA actually dropped support for BFV and Battlefront 2 at the same time because they made the devs to work on a new project which I presume was 2042
@@livered7813 To be fair, if you could ads with MMGs they'd be unstoppable. I shit stomp everyone with the MG42 as is. But, I agree with everything else.
Battlefield: Identity Crisis
Hazard Zone's going to be as much of a success as Firestorm was. Can't wait to see them course correct once the Specialists nonsense really starts backfiring.
Saying that DICE has lost its way would be an understatement. Portal may be its only saving grace but i have no intention of early adopting this. It just not enough. It clearly need a lot more time in the oven.
Like you said. Maybe a year from now. If it's not riddled with cheaters.
That's if EA doesn't pull development money like they did with BF5. EA pulled the rug out from dev teams for what what supposed to be the last push for content that was promised as a "live service" for BF5, which remember, was EA's greatest idea of the time...
Once interest is lost, the money investment goes to the newest idea. I hate to agree that inventing in a sinking ship is a good way to burn money.
You'd think they'd start to make better hulls.
I deadass forgot Firestorm existed
This is such a good overview of it, literally hit every point I wanted to know about. Smashed it.
I agree. A lot of my concerns where addressed, and in some cases even allayed. I might even buy the game on launch just for portal alone.
The level of fear for the console version is giving me that Cyberpunk anxiety
I think the difference is we already kinda know it runs poorly on console.
Cyberpunk was a surprise but this isn’t. If anyone thinks it was gonna run great on consoles on release then they are delusional.
Especially the last gen ugh
@@papalazarou1353 even on series x or PS5?
@@alanalb1449 yeah even on next gen. Ik they can handle much more then what the PS4 and Xbox one can but this game is way bigger then any battlefield game we’ve got and it’s way too ambitious for dice and EA. Throwing 128 people into an EA server is bound to cause issues.
I love that even though you are critical you are ultimately rooting for the game to succeed and arent just bashing for hater clicks. Keep up the great work skill up.
Same dude who called CP’77 “F***ing Awesome” before it even released
@@jaypeterman9721 Ahhhh you mad.
(He didn’t say that)
@@jaypeterman9721 he probably played on a more optimised version of the game and only got to experience the good parts of it. After all, CDPR only let him review cyberpunk on PC instead of the mess on console.
Who wouldn't want this game to be the best ever? It's just sad to see that the game might not even pass the "good" grade.
@@benklein8802 he actually did and till this day still has the review up at least Yong yea took his shit down and apologized I love skill up but that's the one huge shit stain on his YT career for me
You can tell the game has some Apex/CoD'ish vibe to it. upper management liked the release of CoD, plus games trend with the specialists thing. therefore EA wants to attract players coming from other games to BF (that's a risky strategy, you might end up with players moving from BF to other fps games since BF lost it's core game style). You can also tell the game is rushed by at least 6 months. The game distanced itself from the original and the simplicity of BF and it only kept the name. too many buttons to press each with different ability. I'm afraid the game might end like MoH.
I totally agree and the guns all shoot like Lazer beams as if it were Cod, the guns have no character to them. I won't be buying this garbage, this game has lost its identity.
@@hydrohyperdrive8443 right with ya mate
Don't forget the rainbow 6 seige vibe with the specialist and the opening and end of round scenes
Spot on. Absolutely hate the post game animation. Would be nice to have a character who just has a thousand yard stare and doesn't say a word..
That's exactly what happened to me: I'm moving from B2042 to Halo Infinite Multiplayer because there's a lot of things done wrong, and in first place, in my opinion, is the movement system. I LOVE B1 and BV for the movement, the way running and crouching feels. BV feel a little parkour sometimes. Both feel like your are playing a very articulated soldier and a little more heavier. B2042 just got rid of it.
I'm agree with the lack of team play and the silly and cheap the specialist system is, but movement was a point of no return for me.
Makes one really appreciate how smooth Halo infinite was
A new triple A title running smoothly with the amount of financial growth the industry has experienced in the last decade leaves no excuse for a game like this to be released and accepted as a proper release, it’s completely and utterly disgusting and I wish I wasn’t alive to see the last 6 years of gaming
@@dillonn3918 Well, don't say you wish you weren't alive. There's many that aren't now to experience what we have. But I agree with the first half of your comment. There's no excuses.
To be fair, Halo is much less demanding in terms of player count and graphics and map size and detail. Not a knock on Halo I love that game but it’s not a very fair comparison 👍🏻
Because looks like a x360 game
@@yoyicr1 Graphics aren't the reason
The specialists killed my hype completely when they got announced. It doesn't fit battlefield and I begin to see how gaming disregards my generation as a focus slowly but surely the further I get to the 30.
You are basically dead in gamer years, sorry. I'm speaking from experience, I'm almost 40.
I found a way around it actually lol, if you play someone like Dozer who has a heavily infantry based gadget, you can make ALL of the custom classes you'd like. So say you can have an Assault, Medic, Engineer, Recon, Support etc.
If you’re over 21 you don’t exist in the eyes of the majority of these triple A devs
@@donjon5442 ironic because the game is rated M lol
@@donjon5442 too bad us 21 and up are majority of the people who buy the games.
I can just hear people say "Well all Battlefields release broken." What a world we live in
Right or wrong though
Not wrong though and usually they turn into great games lol
@@idk2865 still isn't excuse to release a broken game
I'll just wait for few months when it comes out on game pass
@@Mr.Scott86 you can't ask for any game to not release buggy/broken, its not gonna happen
I really like what you're saying about immersion not necessarily being linked to realism. That's also my problem with BF2042. I think the game would be a lot more immersive if they had cut out the whole "nopat" or expat thing and removed the specialists. Because it's a near future setting I don't mind stuff like the sentry turret, grapple gun and even the wallhack thing, but I hate that they are locked behind these ridiculous "specialists".
It makes no sense to have a game mode with 128 players be occupied by a dozen specialists, it completely destroys any sense of immersion knowing that there is probably 30 Boris' running around on the battlefield, 18 Sundance's and so on. That should've been replaced with Russian, Chinese and American grunts. It's much easier to believe a bunch of Russian grunts in 2042 would be carrying sentry guns to the frontline, whilst American grunts are using hyper advanced scanners to detect infantry through walls. It would also be more immersive in my opinion, to get to decide the sex and outfit of my character:
I hate that if I want to use Sundance's wingsuit, I have to be this black woman wearing a beanie, or that if I wanna call in a resupply station, I have to look like a civilian with a backpack (seriously, Angel looks more like a guy working in IT than he does a soldier).
I think that's my biggest issue as well, look at Halo Infinite, they let you customize your own Spartan that fits into the Halo universe, I want to do the same thing for Battlefield, I want to make a soldier that looks like he belongs in a warzone and way too many of the operators don't look like that, most of them don't even have a helmet. Irish is probably the closest one, Dozer is up there too but that gasmask is ridiculous, trust me, I work in a Chemical Biological Radiological Nuclear (CBRN) army unit, and fighting with a gasmask on is beyond difficult.
I really miss the Battlefield 3 and especially 4's character models, they looked great and it was easy to tell if someone was a medic, engineer, support or recon way before you pressed the spotting button. More importantly, they looked like soldiers in an army, ready to fight in global conflict. Specialists looks like a teenager's idea of how they would go to war, "yeah, if I was SEAL team 6 I would've just used a wingsuit to fly right through the windows and killed Bin Laden with an SMG lol... What? Body armor? Helmets? I'm just gonna wear something tactical... like a black beanie!".
I kinda liked how specialists worked in BF1, limited amount of players could be one and the kits would spawn on certain areas on the map, including the pilot, horse rider etc. And yeah, have to agree the specialists looks way to tacticool, R6 Siege vibes from that shit.
Considering we have specialist; there look; and their end of round one liners; Fortnite is having a bigger influence on battlefield then many people would like to admit.
They wanted the Fortnite crowd with hopes of unicorn skins, big expressive Pixar eyes, and Marvel-tier quips.
''Big Scale Realistic Looking Overwatch'' I felt that...
That actually makes me more interest than not. What’s the goal?? 😂
@@michaellangan5037 because Battlefield isn't a hero shooter, and never has been. If you want cartoony and overscaled action, play Overwatch then. That's not an insult, it is simply a fact.
@@mduggy1396 ah now that makes more sense. Thanks for that!
Sounds to me like the game is CPU bottlenecked with 128 players, so the GPU performance ceases to have any effect once you hit 70-80fps and its the CPU work causing the instability, given your FPS is so much better with 32 players.
This is definitely the case, went from 2700x to 5600x and got 15FPS in Warzone and in BF5(Firestorm) both. Huge MP games are the place where CPU power is needed.
And if you don´t get constant FPS you don´t blame game but CAP it on MIN FPS for smooth gameplay. In MP high AVG FPS=\= Best experience
But why would they create a game that has 128 player battles and just assume everyone that plays the game has some godly cpu?
Developer design choices blow my mind sometime.
@@chasepop4578 good point
@@chasepop4578 Current consoles both have CPU a Zen 2 8 core. It's better than what a lot of computers have, I'd say they targetted that honestly.
@2freeIvX that’s why I’ll prob end up buying it on PS5 if it has solid 60 FPS
As a Battlefield veteran and having played 2042 for about 6 hrs from launch, I'm lost... There is no class identity anymore, anyone can do anything. I loved the unique identities in the Battlefield games (medic, recon, support and assault). Now you won't have a clue who is doing what and have to pray to the RNG gods that someone is carrying a medical kit or ammo crate in your assault team / squad. Portal is OK... it's great that you can play the old content again with new skins.... But its exactly that.... Recycled content with a new skin. Hopefully it will grow on me. The gunplay doesn't feel anywhere near as smooth as BF1 / BFV currently which is also a concern. However I am having fun.... But whether I sink hundreds of hours in like previous titles is yet to be seen.
My disappointment exactly, I don't know about other people, but I don't want to play bf3/4 for another 10 years. I had hoped the 2042's base experience was going to live up to the older titles with portal as a nice addition to re-experience the older games instead of having recycled content as the best thing in the game. A shame really.
I know that people who worked on older BF games are gone. I know times changed and all what matters now is money. I know games now just copy paste each other.
BUT
After that amazing atmosphere from BF1, where you felt you really are in a war, in a battlefield, after that very good fortification system from BF5, gunplay, movement, after you cancelled Battlefront 2 and had 5 ( if I'm not wrong ) studios to work on this game, you give us, THIS ?
Lifeless maps, poor gunplay, no emption, no atmosphere, almost no destruction, no class system, ugly looking maps, empty maps, no different play modes. This isn't battlefield, is a combination of warzone and overwatch and it's disappointing. We've waited all these years for THIS ?
Please don’t call yourself a battlefield veteran
@@catalinmihailescu wow, it's almost as if they slapped this game together in 2/3 years and that throwing more people onto a project doesn't necessarily mean quality. I jest but this game along with Vanguard are soulless cash grabs, with BF exclusively pulling on nostalgia of games 6-10+ years old. Assume this game is possibly taking the games as a service model, expect a lot of filler and waiting months for basic features.
@@BetaBreaking you're right. Let's not forget that battlefield it's kinda known for being good to play, only if you wait few months after release, so they can make it work right. Still, these companies have tons of money, but they can't provide a working project from the day 1. And yes, the majority of franchises, these days they carry only their name and not the soul of good games they used to be. Let's be honest, if this game had other name, the majority of people would skip it. Same as cod vanguard.
Stand up people, and DO NOT BUY this
Its kinda sad that the best part of the game seems to be the bit where they basically let you play the old games (portal). I think EA needs a series of executive level Seppukus for any kind of major change to happen. Gaming has become so stale these days that the only thing I am even hyped for at the moment is Elden Ring, and that's basically just Dark Souls: Breath of the Wild.
That will only happen when they stop making money, which is apparently never
Halo infinite?
Gaming is trash. Ive been playing enlisted, gta trilogy & saints row 2. I just cant stomach most new games because they are either half ass released or sweat fests. This BF never looked good and the beta was generally the game. Dice EA knew this game was shit lol, now all you see online is schills and fan boys trying their best to spin this smh
Did you play Returnal?
@@ispgravy4233 been hyped for it since the trailer, but from what I've heard over the last few months, it could become troublesome as well :/
Thanks for the Hunt comparison! Such an underappreciated game that has some of the best audio design for a pvp shooter. You're spot on when it comes to knowing the map and the mechanics to that game, you can win a match with a free hunter against a fully kitted team if you are a good shot and know how to position yourself.
Hunt is a strange one for me, I hate playing it, but I love watching it, and I hate watching people play games, I'm an old grouch when it comes to streamers and streaming as a whole. Sucks to suck I guess. :D
@@gs8494 it’s a nightmare on console because of no aim assist and the ultra campy playstyle. On PC I’ve heard it’s MUCH faster paced and more enjoyable. I’m way too impatient to just camp in a house for half an hour just to die to some mine or something.
@@MrGoldenGuitar your last sentence is why I don't really enjoy battle royale
@@MrGoldenGuitar Ah shoot, didn’t realize that’s what it was like on console, that definitely would taint my experience. On PC it’s got a good tempo and you won’t get far if you just camp in a building, plus where’s the fun in that haha. Just gotta throw consumables in buildings like flashbombs or dynamite if you know someone is in there.
I agree! And after playing Hunt for the last two years, 2042 looks like a trash game for children!
Thanks for your honest opinion. Glad I've cancelled the pre-order.
Why did u pre order in the first place? Were afraid they were gonna run out of digital copies? *Facepalm*
Such elite profile picture and still pre-ordering games 🤦
@@Tequila628 lmao why does that bother you , you're not the one that bought it
@@pronto7362 it’s effects everybody eventually because the more people pre order without proof of functional game on launch, the more publishers continue releasing broken games day one because people would already have bought it anyways before release just off hype.
"We have to cross this massive expanse of no man's land, and the enemy had already dug in"
Ah yes, a breakthrough staple. Why the fuck does DICE think this is fun and keep doing it each time they do breakthrough? God I miss Rush.
Thanks for this. The bots and the specialists really make this unappealing to me, and I'm just glad that a major reviewer is telling that story. If I could purchase Portal as a standalone I'd probably do that. I guess I'll keep an eye on this one. If they'd just make Conquest and All Out Warfare with Specialists a separate game mode, and then make the classic style with classes its own game mode, that'd be fine. Everyone would abandon the Specialist mode and that'd be that.
So bf portal???
3 games remastered basically, 60 bucks is quite the deal
@@ranimdude Except that we don’t even get everything for those games.
@@jblazerndrowzy its still 3 games basically
Finally Skill Up addresses one of my biggest pet peeves with his content, thank you for mentioning which CPU the GPUs were paired with, mentioning the CPU makes a huge difference for people like me and it always annoyed me how only the GPU was mentioned as if it was the only part on the PC that mattered for performance. Please continue mentioning the CPU in future videos, and again thank you!
the problems he has sounds like its a CPU related issue rather than graphics card. DLSS works well when you are heavily gpu limited but does hardly anything when cpu limited.
@@imo098765 Pretty much, reminds me of planetside 2, which was a CPU heavy game due to the fact you could have hundreds of players going at once.
I think battlefield is kinda having the same issue adjusting to having up to 120+ players on a single map now.
Yeah, you see quite a few people gloss over the CPU, which can be very important in regards to performance, especially with CPU intensive games. Now if only he'd share his ram, which can also affect performance to a variable degree.
@@SekiberiusWelkesh You people are acting like he doesn't have basically the best AMD cpu and Nvidia GPU money can buy.
It's irrelevant. No one has better pretty much. I have a 10850k and I'm scared to buy BF 2042 because even though he said it seems more optimized for 10 series cards and I have a 1080ti I need over 100 FPS in my Battlefield games to get the smoothness I expect from it.
@@mjay6245 you will be fine i have same cpu as you these games are heavy on cpu and our i9 is more than enough for the game. The 1080ti is still a very good card!
This game has no content whatsoever, barely any weapons, too much chaos that you don't even know what to do and barely any teamwork. So far I regret buying this game.
Shit, bro, my wife got this for me as a surprise as I am a huge BF fan. She got the digital gold version so I could play early....so I don't even have a disc I can break or return to Gamestop for the 5 bucks in store credit they'd likely give me, anything would be better than playing this game. It is so fn bad.
@@SkunkLifeMedia I feel you bro, this game is lacking on content like crazy. Hazard zone sucks, only 2 modes in all out warfare, specialists are garbage, no real Russian or American military, just the specialists, I can go on and on lmao. I literally bought crysis trilogy remastered to get me through the holidays.
I totally know what you mean by the chaos, previous battlefield games were chaotic but I always had a clue what was going on, it just seemed like a total mess of random shit when I played the beta.
Game's only saving grace is that you can play old bf titles with updated graphics on it.
Literally reskined.
Between the Beta feeling like shit and your review in progress, I’ll definitely be waiting until they’ve patched some things before buying.
Actually don't buy this one the specialists look like they're here to stay and it's not a Battlefield game if it's trying to mimic Overwatch or Siege.
@@OneLeggyBoy This is why they added Portal. Portal still has the OG class system. I'm not a big BF fan anymore, and I wasn't planning on buying this, but if I do in the future. I'm putting all that game time into Portal.
This game not having a scoreboard is making me reconsider purchasing it. I play FPS games to compete with other players. Eliminating the scoreboard to where I can't see where I rank among other players in a match gives me no motivation to play.
💯💯💯
Whatever you can check your stats online
TBF BF beinc "competitive" is a bad thing. Would just keep destroying the semblenence of Teamplay.
The reason for this is that bad players will ragequit if they realize they're not topfragging. Every decision made in this game was designed such that EA can profit off of the lowest common denominator. This is exactly the same reason Black Ops Cold War doesn't show you your K/D in team deathmatch.
@@speedking7224 You actually can't though. Battlefield Tracker doesn't support this game because there is no stat tracking in the game at all.
I would argue monetisation still is their biggest concern - Portal seems to be a way to incentivise a purchase of the game to people who aren't a fan of specialists in main multiplayer, which certainly were in for money. Really hope the game is good, but right now I just can't trust Dice or EA.
Yep. It's a way to capture low-econ or non-whale old BF players so that the servers are active and the whales don't jump ship.
@@angelreyes8714 Exactly. Older titles are where basically all of the core community is, and Dice and EA make no money from these older players who have been playing games like BF4 and 3 since launch. Seems to me they are desperate to get them on the newer games since non BF players don't tend to stick around long term
They’re a business. No shit their end game is to monetize the game the best way they can. It’s just about finding that sweet spot that isn’t overboard like their fuck up with Battlefront 2.
That's an odd argument to make. "They're adding a fun game mode to entice people to buy the game" that's ... that's how most games work.
They’re also very much able to make money off portal by selling portal expansion packs adding in the other Battlefield games later on.
Honestly, super excited to play this in 1 year with all the patches and dlc for a fraction of the price
I'm excited for when they announce the next one in a couple years. Hopefully they won't fuck that one up too.
@@ThePsychoReturns best to keep your expectations low, won't be as disappointed if something bad happens (again)
I am just happy that I got it for free :b still a fun game for me, and u fortunately I didn’t find Halo fun :/ which annoys me a bit
Loving your honesty! Some things I think need to be implemented or improved:
- AI doesn't offer any challenge
- revive mechanic is still static
- still no quickchat??
- audio still feels off
Change the audio mix to War Tapes it’s better than all the other options still doesn’t have that specific punch you’re looking for but definitely better than the other audio mixes. It’s near perfect in Portal.
It seems to me, and from my testing on the beta that bf 2042 is EXTREMELY bound to cpu performance, it doesnt matter if you have a 1080ti or a 3090. If you dont have latest and greatest cpus you will not notice a difference, and i bet you that if you enable graphs and performance metrics if you compare your 2080 ti and 3090 with the same cpu at lets say 1080p, you will get identical performance and both gpus being under utilized. Thats why in hazard zone you get better performance, less players less stuff to calculate more cpu power to drive your frames. In my case during the beta with a 5600x and a 2070 super i got 90 ~110 fps consistenly.
I would agree. I have had trouble getting a newer GPU. My build currently has a well binned 5800X with a good stable OC and a 1070ti.
I seem to have ran the beta much better than many with their 3080's and beyond.
If a 5950X on 1440p Ultra gets average 80fps, something is definitely wrong with CPU utilization.
@@TheHipClip well historically battlefield always was a cpu hog, but the fact that they added 128 players really doesnt help, for me its a plus since i can run a minimum average of 80. But for many it will be a huge downgrade to performance especially since maps are huge and the playerbase is spread out, essentially nullifying it while keeping the performance negatives. But hey personally played a shit ton of planetside 2 with 30 fps and similar battles of 100 players in the same spot. So kinda used to this already and i can say its pretty damn fun. (the battles , not the 30 fps.)
@@incediumignis Totally forgot about Planetside 2 :) fun times. But I think with DLSS and top of the line hardware games should run 1440p 144Hz at Ultra, if you spend $4000.
Definitely CPU it seems we all have the same story with it.
Meanwhile Jackfrags and Westie:
Best Battlefield ever, 10/10 it's perfect
Yeah I think they both have some sort of contract with EA. Westie expecially
Yeah, i stopped watching them because of that.
JackFrags is essentially employed by EA at this point
@@lovablesnowman Yeah, it's pretty sad he's so biased now. He was my favorite BF-content creator during BC2/BF3.
Yo where did you leave Clementine man?
Everyone: BF 2042 will be ready in a year.
EA: Everything is working as intended, just like it was when Anthem launched. BF 2042 will launch next week Tuesday once we've ramped up the monetization.
Edit for typo
*Me on my OG Xbox one and my 10 year old tv*: "Hmmm yes, 70 fps simply won't due."
Haha good review in progress skillup 👍🍻
I’m on Xbox one x and it runs like shit
I didn’t expect much but i was hoping it would be better then it is
@@EnglishTomm I don't blame you. For the record, I still hope the best for the game. It sucks that it doesn't seem to be optimized well. But had to throw a joke in here to lighten the mood a little. In the end, it seems to be more of a wait and see title to me.
Me on my intel UHD 620 running 5 fps
@@EnglishTomm Than*🤦♂️
I believe the 128 player performance losses are cpu bound, would make sense when not even lowering the graphics settings changes fps. This has to be tested of course but this would be the simplest reason for good performance on some rigs and bad performance on others.
That’s what I’m thinking as well
yeah i don't think there is any cpu that can push the 3090, i have a 2080ti and a 3900x and i got good fps in the beta
i have a 2600 with a 3080ti it ran similar but around 10fps lower
Digital Foundry gonna have a field day with this one
Yes CPU limited indeed. But here's the kicker. "Back in the day" in 2003 .. Planetside got released on PC. It had 300 people on 1 map. Three-hundred-people on one map.
And there were several maps running concurrently on the same server, each with a max pop of 300. ( you could go to a giant portal to take you to a different map to continue the fight there, but it was concurrent cause you can see what's happening on the other large maps and/or coordinate with your team mates there) And yes there were really that many people back in the day of that game. This was at a time where the fastest CPU you could buy was a Pentium 4 on the Intel side, and the 3200+ on the side. 1 Core, 1 thread for AMD, 1 core, 2 threads (HT) for Intel. I had the AMD , and it ran this on max settings just fine.
Clearly these games are rushed nowadays to meet a short development cycle, no doubt to get it out for Xmas. It shows here...
Games being rushed for an Xmas release certainly isn’t anything knee sadly. This goes back 10-15 years. It’s just more common now.
sat that to atari ET
Infinitely Wrong
Game devs these days don't have originality or heart anymore.
@@Assassin199410 That literally your only retort to anything? Might want to pick up a creative writing class, you sorely need it
i subscribed to you in the days of the division 1 when you did guides on stats, and you have evolved into the most in depth reviewer of them all, i appreciate every video you make!
Same bro
The Dice team could still have been allowed to make their little portal love letter to battlefield while also designing the rest of the game and its systems around being heavily monetized. Just because 1 game mode out of 5 isn't heavily monetized doesn't mean the other 4 won't be.
Was ready to buy it, glad I waited for a review. Will be waiting for the fixes and a discount
Same here bro
Agreed. Battlefield games also usually end up getting huge discounts on the digital stores
Yip so glad this guy does these well informed videos. Love battlefield but definitely not putting down full money on this. Looking forward to his full review
It’s still a great game. Bugs and just minor and a LOT less than prior battlefields upon launch
but...this isn't a review.
The best part of the 3 day test was playing the older battlefields. Says a lot.
Well that's mainly just the nostalgic feeling of playing I would say
Love what you said about immersion not being the same as atmosphere, also for using bf1 as an example for a game that nailed atmosphere
Battlefield without classes is like dark souls without the bosses. It's a fundamental part of the gamr and idk what brought them to remove it other then change for the sake of it. Honestly, it they kept specialists to the hazard zone and brought back classes for the other modes, I think that would go a long way in making the game feel like Battlefield again
That would be
1. Infantry vehicle combat
2.large maps
3.large playerbase
If it aint got those, it aint a battlefield game, if you say it's a core element, you need to be educated
@@ranimdude yeah I love how people only use med bags to heal themselves, no one carries ammo and even if they did, I couldn't even tell.
@@ranimdude Ah yes because Battlefield is a Call of Duty that required no teamwork in order to win a match
@@danwhowatches707 if your idea of teamwork is you all mutually agree to go somewhere and take the point, that's not teamwork
@@ranimdude That's your baseless and uneducated idea of teamwork in Battlefield. Battlefield uses a class system where each has their unique role to take the objective together using those unique gadgets given in each role
Hi skill up, I wanted to ask, what happened to Laymen gaming, I am really concerned why your brother isn't posting videos anymore? I hope he's alright
Had the same thoughts after another commenter said something in one of his other reviews, no videos in months is kinda worrying
It just wasn't succeeding. It was all about their chemistry together, with Ralph gone, gone was the chemistry. It was about Ralph's knowledge and experience VS Sam's simplistic noobiness :D So you got interesting viewpoints with funny memes and hillarious interactions. Now you get none of that. It's sad because it was my favorite channel for a period.
@@martincerny3294 Even I cant deny that after Ralph left I stopped watching their videos all the time and went back to watch epic blunders like anthem and fallout 76, but now I miss Sam and I still want videos from him. Or at least know what happened from the duo themselves?
Given that the specialists have an assigned class, hopefully at some point they'll bring in equipment restrictions and actually work the specialists into a part of the classes rather than replacing them.
Yeah, the specialists sound great for Hazard Zone, but for the basic gameplay you really need to be able to identify the role of your enemy.
If they reskinned specialists as class specialisations, put generic class skins over them, and made gadget restrictions, the game would be a lot more healthy/well-received.
This is a very fair & accurate review. As a hard core BFBC2/BF3 and BF4 player ( i played but did not enjoy BF1 and BF5), would summarize this first week of pre-order/EA play as essentially a real beta test and we're seeing what i'd expect from a real beta. The official "beta" was really an early alpha test. I am enjoying the game quite a bit but admittedly I'm a big Battlefielder and I am also always playing with a 4 man squad of longtime friends & BF3/BF4 clan mates. THat means that i am still having fun amidst the myriad of issues. I am telling everyone i know that i'm enjoying the game but advising that they should hold off till things stabilize. Rubberbanding can get really bad at times during conquest matches. Sometimes we would spawn into maps with no kits available and no weapon attachments were unlocked. We also encountered matches where we were unable to deploy into the game. At least 2 times we selected breakthrough on the new maps but got thrown into portal matches (twice on Arica Harbor). the "deploy" selection options were a nightmare...my success rate for deploying either on a teammate or flag was 50%. They need to better highlight who you're spawning on. They need to disable the friends footsteps or tone them down. There is more. Fun game but lots to get worked, definitely not a launch purchase. If this is like Bf4, it'll take DICE about 6 months to get things ironed out and then it'll be a good purchase.
The developers aren’t trying to make “a good game”
You need to learn the difference between developers and publishers and the differences between the leads and CEOs and the people who actually make everything.
"The performance on pc is much worse in the pc"
"The performance on two pc which is on 2080Ti and RTX 3090 are not a great news."
Oh shit. *Sweating in years old hardware*
Wait for Digital Foundry's review. They are the gold standard for testing games for performance issues AND potential solutions.
Nvidia's gameready driver hasn't released so that might help. Also it seems like he is hitting a cpu bottleneck since DLSS isn't helping. The 3950x isn't very good for gaming, even the 5600x destroys it.
@@trignite That's actually a fair point. The game-ready driver should offer better performance, although it's hard to say by how much. Also, I'd forgotten that the 5000 series has better single-core performance - that probably does make a decent difference, too.
Thankfully it has DLSS if your GPU can use it.. but it still seems poorly optimised
DUDES, the game ready driver is not out yet.
Nvidia is abysmally late on this one, they must have massive issues solving it i guess.
This already has such a "Million patches on day 1" vibe just from everything you said in your review. Hard skip till I see actual user review cause from what I get they basically tied one arm behind your back while you were trying to review it, very sus.
Thank god you are more honest than jack and levelcap
I've said it once and I'll say it again. Skill up has the most all round, detailed, unbiased reviews of any game channel.
He’s alright bruh
Sometimes
ehhh i wouldnt push it that far.
Exept for his cyberpunk videos
I love your content. I especially love that you give a very detailed summary that's roughly 5 minutes. I can leave and be completely satisfied that what I clicked on is what I got. But the real treat is the remaining 30ish minutes. It's like when a person who enjoys good food, takes the time to learn all the parts to make it.
the way you said "Audio in Battlefield 2042 is fuuuuuuucked" had me dying lmao
I wish major studios would just take the time to release a finished polished product at LAUNCH. Live service is great to keep games alive and fresh but it also gave modern devs a lot of slack to “fix it later”
My hope is that Halo Infinite shows the industry that delaying a game and listening to player feedback, coupled with a solid release (hoping), is worth it.
Halo: Infinite js setting itself up to be a return to form for Halo, and a juggernaut of "hey look how good our _HALO_ game is" (not a generic sci-fi game trend follower).
No console review codes made available? Hmmm...Cyberpunk flashbacks 🤫
The specialist system was the nail in the coffin for me sadly. Fingers crossed Halo Infinite doesn't let me down. Until then I've been playing Enlisted, Insurgency, and Chivalry.
try hell let loose. wildly differs than games you've been playing and it'll take sometimes before it clicks. but i assure you, HLL is one of my highlight of gaming in 2021.
@@propane593 it's still got a healty playerbase the latest update adds a 1 life mode and new weapons and cosmetics. Still waiting for them to release the horse update but probably won't see that until early 2022.
BF2042 beta was the nail in the coffin and drove me to play enlisted and i cant lie, ive been enjoying that game more. I think the BF title is dead at this point for me
@@mrsanatra1 I'm addicted to Enlisted it feels like an an actual war game, the atmosphere is impressive.
@@Madmongul It's also incredibly janky, but it's the fun kind of janky lmao, not the painful kind like 2042
Overall though its been a little tough to get used to, but I'm enjoying it
It will never not amaze me how such an experienced studio in the realm of first person multiplayer shooters is still able to get the fundamentals that wrong… not even speaking of the absolutely atrocious performance „optimization“.
Every game since BF4 has needed extensive updates. That's 8 years where DICE has had room to dissappoint you and me.
On series X I had occasional freezes that would last a few seconds, honestly I personally think it's garbage and got mine refunded
How is the levelution in this game? I've heard almost nobody talk about it, and the map destruction is one of my favorite things about the other games.
Non-existing. Levolution doesnt exist here
Non existent like the previos comment said, buildings have almost no destructible walls, just played in early access, Portal is truly the only good thing
@@TheDgr1984 Well that blows.
Don't hold back or sugarcoat it. You aren't them but I'm tired of reviewers that only mention mostly good things & rate it highly. Plenty of people spoke about what was systematically wrong in the beta, they chose not to delay & if it's not up to standard then they don't deserve praise.
Also one 'portal' mode isn't worth $70+. I feel a lot of 'EA game changers' (i.e RUclips advertiser's) are going to overhype things like Portal.
Yes Portal mode is worth it lol. Portal Mode is like 50x the size of CoD, and the base BF2042 game. Portal IS the entire game as far as I am concerned.
yeh reviews should be more honest. A good example is horizon 5 that just launched, it is absolutly fantastic but the online mode is broken and the graphics options dosent seem to work on pc but not many reviews mention that
@@limpis2823 "the graphics options dosent seem to work on pc"
I noticed this too and thought I was going crazy until Digital Foundry covered the PC port
@@xcalium9346 exactly! The ultra settings looks like low settings so something is definitely wrong. They are dropping a patch today if they haven't done so already so fingers crossed!
@@truedps8 if Portal was 12+ classic maps not 6, it would be worth it
The only thing about this game that interests me is that "portal" editor, i'm surprised that exists in a modern game.
Idk, it's weird imo. It does look great but feel that Portals success would feel kinda badly ironic.
If a level designer used by the consumer is more successful than the base game then what have we come to?
Yeah, we've got a great product - but that's because we have to make it ourselves?
Yes, at its base it offers you remastered content which we all happily except but idk... its just strange if it comes out as the prize of 2042.
I really appreciated the short summary in the beginning. Concise enough broad overview in 5 minutes!
Incredible review. This guy deserves a raise.
The specialists haven't bugged me as much as I thought they might, but the game still feels really underwhelming. The maps feel like this generic near-future vibe with no soul, and the destruction seems much poorer here than previous titles. It's probably the least immersed I have felt in a Battlefield game. The 10-hour trial was enough for me to realise I am better off waiting for Halo Big Team Battle.
Exactly. Now that Halo multiplayer is out I'm done with this game already
Man! I fkin love you so much. You don't flow with the current and say what people want to hear. You say what people should hear. No wonder I wait specifically for YOUR reveiws even though I could watch thousand others.
What are you talking about? At the moment it's the hot trend to shit on Vanguard and Battlefield like crazy. You barely find any good reviews of those games. Because both are shit. Only the shills will tell you what you want to hear. In which reality do you live in?
You forgot no homo tag
@@henrytownshend8862 😔
So I played the trial available on Xbox Series X, and I say; this needed to be a June/July 2022 release at the very least.
Credit where credit is due; it performed WAY better than the Beta did, and was definitely more fun, at least for a bit. The maps other than Orbital were much better - I definitely enjoyed Manifest (the cargo container one) a good deal. That said, it still has MAJOR issues, and unlike Skillup, I'll come right out and say it - 2042 was DEFINITELY a Battle Royale with Hazard Zone as first, then adapted into a traditional Battlefield later when they realized it wasn't gonna work out.
Hazard Zone is completely skippable and should've just been scrapped, because Hunt and Tarkov do everything it is trying to do, but better and with better takes on the idea.
But all the design decisions, from how maps flow, how buildings are grouped together on many maps, how they're so basic and bare, how destruction works, Specialists and the loss of the class system to even the weapon customization system all scream "BATTLE ROYALE IDEAS" because they all make sense there and feel like they belong there, not in a Battlefield game. And all these non-Battlefield elements leave the game feeling like a weird mix of Warzone and Blackout's 50v50 mode, not Battlefield.
But one thing I will say they did well above everything else; the weather. Not only does it look great, but goddamn do you FEEL it, especially if you're in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I agree. Whats your take on 'expedition-type' games like tarkov and hunt? Like what makes them good, and in what way could hazard zone be overhauled to match them?
@@michajagielski8381 hope you don’t mind me cutting in, but in my opinion, the reason Tarkov and hunt showdown work so well is because of how steadily paced, difficult, and detailed they are. Those games require careful movement, map knowledge, coordination, and patience. Battlefield’s gunplay, movement, and basic systems don’t lend themselves to slower paced exploration with bursts of tactical, unforgiving combat, and that’s because it works extremely well with huge, constant action. Try putting Tarkov gunplay into that sort of a game and you end up with squad, and put battlefield gunplay into A tarkov sort of game and well… it feels like it’s over too fast, and has long moments of low tension. Tarkov and hunt, you’re constantly on edge, always hyper aware because one mistake can get you killed in a second. The game is designed around that. Hazard seems to lack that tension, because it doesn’t feel like there’s any real threat, you’re just looking for the next fight. On top of that, there’s no real sense of progression, nothing to work towards. If they can find a solution to those two core problems, the lack of tension/progression, I think it has a *chance* of working out.
Makes you appreciate the patience Microsoft has had with halo infinite, could've been a similar story.
Don't you ever compare halo to dog shit like this ever again that product is perfection this is TRASH
also age of empires they took in the player feedback to the alpha and went back to the drawing board and pushed release back for it. If EA had any sense they would have done the same and given us classes in conquest mode instead of this heroshooter crap.
I'm wondering when the straw will break the camel's back with BF. Seems like everyone loves them either cause the franchise pedigree or they're so anti-COD that they swing the other way and are super pro BF
When competition actually shows up to prove that there's an alternative. I've been enjoying Enlisted but it doesn't have the polish and marketability to sway most away from the established brand of Battlefield.
@@MisterFoxton i had fun with Enlisted. The fact that there were no Oceania or Asia servers is what stopped me from playing it.
I like how they say cod are for kids, yet they are trashing the franchise like a kid. Thats why, you don't fanboy for anything, you will look stupid if u do
"No one got access to console codes"
Uh oh
It comes out November 12. So we see how it plays on console
@@KarmaRitsu tomorrow?
@@bananasaur5209 today technically.
I'm playing it by changing my location to new Zealand.
@@JohnSmith-tv2kb we all know Australia and NZ are outliers. Only US and Europe matter /s