Battlefield 2042 currently has a 74% negative user reviews on Steam.

Maybe they should look into remastering Battlefield 1942.

 

Modern day gaming - Trash.

 

I would like steam to use a rating system, instead of just positive or negative... cause it's more nuanced than that.

I would give the game a 5/10 for the many many many retarded decisions dice has made with this game - why i dont give it a lower score is because the core gameplay is still fun.

If i had to go by steams rating system however, i would be forced to just give it a "negative" review.

 

Take Battlefield 4. Make new graphics, make new maps, increase players count, add BLM, add LGBTQ+. Done. But they decided to flush the whole series down the toilet for sure this time.

 

I remember reading some quote by EA that said why there won't be a campaign. It went something like "... so DICE can focus on what they can do the best - multiplayer". Which is kinda ironic now loll

 

They did make one good decision. They brought back bots. I like it for that part alone. As for all the other odd design choices, I don't know what they were thinking. Many of these bad choices can be easily rectified but the first impression damage is already done.

 

Actually this game is inside the Portal functionality of 2042. I've encountered some bugs since I've played it. But it's sometimes funny to play those bf games and encounter bugs. Cause I also played the closed and open test version of the game and since then they've fixed a lot of bugs, mostly technical.

I'm one of the guys that has played Joint Operations back in the day. And I'm glad to see that there is finally a game that is starting to come close to that experience.

 

We can't look at Steam user score as we see Reviewers score.
A reviewer tries to access the game's worth, based on several metrics. And then give it a score in a scale.
But Steam scores just reflect how man people found the game worthwhile.
This doesn't mean that BF 2042 is worth 24% in a reviewers scale. It means only 24% of users approved of the game.

I agree that Steam scores should have a more nuanced scale. Maybe a 5 star rating system, or something similar.
There are games that I own that I gave a positive score, but was just an ok game. But I also gave a positive score to great games that I love.
This means that the average game and the great game, get the same score.
And the same goes for negative reviews for some games.

But I think that most companies are scared to give consumers the power to express their likes and dislike. Most companies can't deal with rejection.
Youtube just removed the dislike counter. Epic and several other companies refuse to have suer reviews and scores on their stores.

 

its been a while since we got a good game, has it not?

 

With all the DLC's added that would be pretty epic.

 

It is like Nvidia tech demo more than a game, though it looks worse than Bf 1 and 5. Somehow they messed this up too. Self note, never ever ever pre order anything again from any publisher. Currently, game is more like buggy running simulator than proper war game. I suggest wait for a month or two before buying it, when they at least fix critical bugs and performance.

 

I thought "not working properly for the first year" was how BF had always done it - I remember as far back as BF2 and that was a buggy mess for at least a year.

 

Battlefield 2 was at the very least a true Battlefield video game.

 

Fun fact. It was also partly coded in Python. Mostly the network side of stuff.

 

Lesson learned after "Mass Effect: Andromeda"...

 

You have to be very talented to move franchises in new directions for the better, Mario and Zelda stand out as having been able to do this.
Battlefield doesn't sit in such esteemed company.

Some franchises go the simple route, sports ones in particular. Every year they release basically the same game with just a few changes and improvements.
Battlefiled could easily have gone down this route and and even though I am not advocating this approach, I cannot see how the result could possibly have been worse than 2042.

You have to have respect for yourself and the people spending their money by releasing a game in a reasonably polished state.
The Battlefield developers fail hard here.

I don't see how current social politics in a specific country or part of the world has any place in Battlefield. I'm not trying to be controversial here, quite the opposite. Do I really want devs purposely adding specific groups of people for players to shoot at ?

No problem with adding bots as an option, but 'forcing' bots is a decision I am uncomfortable with. In fact the whole philosophy of trying to force players to do as the devs want raises my blood pressure.
Want to play AOW or Breakthrough with 128 players on your choice of map ? The devs have been listening to J. Allen Brack too much, because when I want to play on a certain map at a certain time, I do.

The poor reviews on Steam are a result of the above, it's so simple to analyse that it makes me wonder exactly what goes on at DICE HQ that they are unable to comprehend what players want.
If they want a game that encompasses all of the current fps trends, then create a spin-off and let Battlefield be Battlefield.

 

Forget these AAA games.
Peppa the pig has a higher score than BF, COD and GTA combined.

 

Spoiler

I bought BF1 for 5€ and enjoyed it for a bit, then I got tired of the constant hackers BS.
I loved battlefield, bought: 1942 and expansions, Vietnam, 2, 3 and "1".
Unfortunately it's a dead game, EA killed it.

 

i played two maps, then i asked for a refund, the game is emply, graphic are bad, animations are bad, gun play is okish, game is boring af. this has to be one of the worst triple A release in the last decade