So the highly advertised 128 players do not sit well with all fans. Some would prefer lower player counts, as was the case in earlier installments of the series.
There are also positive reviews
This is what satisfied players say: The positive reviews and even some negative reviews praise certain elements of the game.
For example, the game modes Hazard Zone and especially the very popular Portal receive a lot of praise.
A bit buggy like most games these days, but Portal is fun and I enjoy the gunplay. I really appreciate that they have such a variety of experiences, like Portal, Hazard, and the regular 2042 modes in the game. The amount of weapon options in the main game is small, but I assume they will change that quickly.
User Pikanuo1 on Steam
Some players can overlook the technical shortcomings and are not bothered by the chaos caused by the high player counts.
Some enjoy exactly this chaos:
[…] It is pure chaos and I love it (most of the time)! Both close quarters and long-range firefights are possible on all maps, the movement is modern and feels good (I haven’t seen anyone bunny hop yet, as was standard in BF4), vehicles and weapons sound good and impressive, graphics are good, although the maps can feel a bit too clean in some places.
Specialists have a good balance and are used consistently. Team play with randoms usually works well, but I prefer Breakthrough Conquest simply because it works better to get ammo, get healed, or revived – and because I just want direct action. […]
User Life on Steam
So there are also enough good voices for Battlefield 2042, and many criticisms, such as bugs and performance issues, can surely be resolved with continuous patches over time.
Battlefield 2042 could, like several predecessors from the series, eventually become a solid and good game after a weak start.
What is absolutely unacceptable, however: Players of Battlefield 2042 allegedly threaten developers with murder – They plead: “Get your act together”
In particular, the maps are often criticized for being too large, with too many open spaces. Weapon balancing and technical issues seem to upset many players. Just like in the review of Crisz:
Unfortunately, I cannot recommend the game at this time. The maps feel way too big, as an infantryman you run for ages, some weapons are (once again) overpowered, and not to mention the bugs, such as the 0s revive timer, where you cannot be revived and cannot respawn!
Unfortunately, at this point, there is only the 128-player mode, which in my eyes is too many players to play a decent match without getting shot by 30 snipers on the opposing team unless you are in a vehicle …
User Crisz on Steam
So the highly advertised 128 players do not sit well with all fans. Some would prefer lower player counts, as was the case in earlier installments of the series.
There are also positive reviews
This is what satisfied players say: The positive reviews and even some negative reviews praise certain elements of the game.
For example, the game modes Hazard Zone and especially the very popular Portal receive a lot of praise.
A bit buggy like most games these days, but Portal is fun and I enjoy the gunplay. I really appreciate that they have such a variety of experiences, like Portal, Hazard, and the regular 2042 modes in the game. The amount of weapon options in the main game is small, but I assume they will change that quickly.
User Pikanuo1 on Steam
Some players can overlook the technical shortcomings and are not bothered by the chaos caused by the high player counts.
Some enjoy exactly this chaos:
[…] It is pure chaos and I love it (most of the time)! Both close quarters and long-range firefights are possible on all maps, the movement is modern and feels good (I haven’t seen anyone bunny hop yet, as was standard in BF4), vehicles and weapons sound good and impressive, graphics are good, although the maps can feel a bit too clean in some places.
Specialists have a good balance and are used consistently. Team play with randoms usually works well, but I prefer Breakthrough Conquest simply because it works better to get ammo, get healed, or revived – and because I just want direct action. […]
User Life on Steam
So there are also enough good voices for Battlefield 2042, and many criticisms, such as bugs and performance issues, can surely be resolved with continuous patches over time.
Battlefield 2042 could, like several predecessors from the series, eventually become a solid and good game after a weak start.
What is absolutely unacceptable, however: Players of Battlefield 2042 allegedly threaten developers with murder – They plead: “Get your act together”
Battlefield 2042 is officially released and there are already first reviews, including some on Steam. However, there is a growing number of negative critiques there. What exactly bothers the players and where the new Battlefield is well received, you will find out here on MeinMMO.
What is the situation on Steam? Today, on November 19, 2021, Battlefield 2042 is officially released. However, it could already be played in Early Access beforehand. But at launch, negative ratings are piling up on the Steam platform.
As of now (November 19, 2021, 3:35 PM), over 9,300 reviews have been submitted. But more than three-quarters of them are negative. Only 21 percent of the ratings are positive.
By the way: As it stands now, it apparently ranks 6th among the games with the worst ratings on Steam. (via reddit)
Players criticize Battlefield 2042, but there are also good voices
In the following paragraphs, we will summarize the most prominent opinions for you. Besides the extensive criticism, positive voices should also be heard.
This is criticized about BF 2042
Currently, there is massive criticism of the game. Especially the following points are being repeatedly mentioned:
- Massive performance problems, such as rubberbanding
- Bugs and glitches
- Too many players at once
- too large maps
- Unnecessary changes, such as the abolition of classes
- Unnecessary features that no one needs, such as weather effects
Overall, it is often criticized that it feels like a demo, beta, or even alpha, rather than a finished AAA game with a high budget.
This is what dissatisfied players say: Here are a few prominent negative opinions:
This game is meant to sell, not to be played. They put all their efforts into things like meaningless weather effects and completely unnecessary scales so they can use these as selling points instead of investing in gameplay. And because of this ridiculous scale, they decided to include as many vehicles as possible without thinking about balancing, once again using spectacle as a selling point.
They replaced classes, a core feature of Battlefield, with specialists because these are easier to monetize. They removed so many great details and gameplay additions from the old Battlefields to focus on making the game sell better instead of making it playable. With the elimination of VoIP, scoreboard, clans, and all chats, practically every sense of community has also been abolished.
User MrNoBody on Steam
In particular, the maps are often criticized for being too large, with too many open spaces. Weapon balancing and technical issues seem to upset many players. Just like in the review of Crisz:
Unfortunately, I cannot recommend the game at this time. The maps feel way too big, as an infantryman you run for ages, some weapons are (once again) overpowered, and not to mention the bugs, such as the 0s revive timer, where you cannot be revived and cannot respawn!
Unfortunately, at this point, there is only the 128-player mode, which in my eyes is too many players to play a decent match without getting shot by 30 snipers on the opposing team unless you are in a vehicle …
User Crisz on Steam
So the highly advertised 128 players do not sit well with all fans. Some would prefer lower player counts, as was the case in earlier installments of the series.
There are also positive reviews
This is what satisfied players say: The positive reviews and even some negative reviews praise certain elements of the game.
For example, the game modes Hazard Zone and especially the very popular Portal receive a lot of praise.
A bit buggy like most games these days, but Portal is fun and I enjoy the gunplay. I really appreciate that they have such a variety of experiences, like Portal, Hazard, and the regular 2042 modes in the game. The amount of weapon options in the main game is small, but I assume they will change that quickly.
User Pikanuo1 on Steam
Some players can overlook the technical shortcomings and are not bothered by the chaos caused by the high player counts.
Some enjoy exactly this chaos:
[…] It is pure chaos and I love it (most of the time)! Both close quarters and long-range firefights are possible on all maps, the movement is modern and feels good (I haven’t seen anyone bunny hop yet, as was standard in BF4), vehicles and weapons sound good and impressive, graphics are good, although the maps can feel a bit too clean in some places.
Specialists have a good balance and are used consistently. Team play with randoms usually works well, but I prefer Breakthrough Conquest simply because it works better to get ammo, get healed, or revived – and because I just want direct action. […]
User Life on Steam
So there are also enough good voices for Battlefield 2042, and many criticisms, such as bugs and performance issues, can surely be resolved with continuous patches over time.
Battlefield 2042 could, like several predecessors from the series, eventually become a solid and good game after a weak start.
What is absolutely unacceptable, however: Players of Battlefield 2042 allegedly threaten developers with murder – They plead: “Get your act together”
