Battlefield 2042 [PS, XB, PC]

PSman1700 said:
Do you mean mbits? Otherwise 5/6mb/s is quite a good connection i think. If you mean 500/600kb/s then yes its going to take awhile to download and update it, but its possible to play if the upload is anywhere ok-ish....
I live in a mountain/rural area, i have fibre now (up to 1gb/s up/down), but prior to that i had anywhere between 200kb/s to 800kb/s depending on what time of the day it was. It was possible to play BF4 with up to two persons in the household. Took awhile to download though :p
Click to expand...
quite surprising if you ask me! Didn't you experience lag and playing at a disadvantage because of that?

I meant Megabits, yeah, so 500/600Kb/s. I also live in a mountainous -close to 900m- isolated area and my connection is internet radio. Fibre shall probably never become a reality here, though with 5G it might not be that necessary. Who knows, I am stuck with 4G LTE now :/
 
Cyan said:
quite surprising if you ask me! Didn't you experience lag and playing at a disadvantage because of that?
Click to expand...

Nope, did TDM silk road 64 slots with a family member no problem at all. Playing games themselfs do not require so high connection speeds. Its more important they are decently stable/ping etc. That was two gaming pc's connected over a 10gb/s lan network though (recommended you use cable instead of wireless). I'd say try it, you obviously would need to download the games but that can be done overnight/or automatically scheduled (mine did on Origin).

Cyan said:
I meant Megabits, yeah, so 500/600Kb/s. I also live in a mountainous -close to 900m- isolated area and my connection is internet radio. Fibre shall probably never become a reality here, though with 5G it might not be that necessary. Who knows, I am stuck with 4G LTE now :/
Click to expand...

Aha hm. I was having ADSL at those speeds you have. No idea about radio connections, it doesnt sound promising. I have played with 4g/LTE though, but not extensively. It was no problem for BF4 atleast. If you dont have a 4g router try that.
I hope you will see a solution for your internet connection. Ive been stuck for over two decades on 500kb/s avg adsl, didnt see any hope for fibre but i have it, in the middle of a mountain area (small mountain town) many miles away from the city. I think the goverment/EU did this funding project of some sort.
 
PSman1700 said:
Nope, did TDM silk road 64 slots with a family member no problem at all. Playing games themselfs do not require so high connection speeds. Its more important they are decently stable/ping etc. That was two gaming pc's connected over a 10gb/s lan network though (recommended you use cable instead of wireless). I'd say try it, you obviously would need to download the games but that can be done overnight/or automatically scheduled (mine did on Origin).



Aha hm. I was having ADSL at those speeds you have. No idea about radio connections, it doesnt sound promising. I have played with 4g/LTE though, but not extensively. It was no problem for BF4 atleast. If you dont have a 4g router try that.
I hope you will see a solution for your internet connection. Ive been stuck for over two decades on 500kb/s avg adsl, didnt see any hope for fibre but i have it, in the middle of a mountain area (small mountain town) many miles away from the city. I think the goverment/EU did this funding project of some sort.
Click to expand...
it might work then... I am going to give it a try. I decided to buy the game via PC Gamepass using the EA Play included and it's on sale on EA's store for 26,99€ so I can play with my best friend from time to time.
 
Jupiter said:
No one here seems to really play the game. Where are all the bugs?

After 130 hours of playtime since Christmas I haven't been able to find many bugs. There is an exaggeration in the internet.

Two bugs that occur regularly in my game:
-Enlarging vehicle sights often results in a black screen. It has to be toomed in again.
-When I set up the automatic turret it often explodes immediately without any reason.

In addition I found it first-class that I could unlock everything very quickly in battles against bots. Unlocking stuff annoys me in games like these.

The scale with 128 players is much more epic. Best conquest in a Battlefield game ever. On the other hand Elden Ring is technical rubbish and is celebrated.




The lack of statistics is not so bad. It allows me to focus more on different roles. With stingers I might not get the best K/D as in other ways but I don't have to orientate myself massively on the K/D when playing. Otherwise I always aim for a K/D of 10/1 since the first battlefield.
Click to expand...
Most people everywhere don't play the game because it's awful. The majority of Battlefield focused creators have made videos explaining why they have abandoned the game.


This is what the game runs like on their recommended CPU spec at lowest possible settings. Watch the video, don't just look at the FPS numbers.
 
Last edited:
I had 10 free hours because of ea play with game pass ultimate or whatever … I didn’t even use all of the hours lol. It was terrible.
 
techuse said:
Most people everywhere don't play the game because it's awful. The majority of Battlefield focused creators have made videos explaining why they have abandoned the game.


This is what the game runs like on their recommended CPU spec at lowest possible settings. Watch the video, don't just look at the FPS numbers.
Click to expand...

Mostly I don't care about the content creators. Hate is cool today. It's cool to hate stuff and it gets a lot of clicks and sells well. Many people are jumping on the hate bandwagon. There are some channels like YongYea that are only designed around hate.

Most people also think that Battlefield 5 is very bad although in my view it had the best combat on foot and a lot of interesting mechanics. In contrast, they praise Battlefield 4 which in my opinion had worse maps and was superfluous next to Battlefield 3. For many content creators Battlefield 2042 is too hard.

The frame rate is mostly lower than in other Battlefield games because the scale is much larger. There are far more vehicles and players here which increases the load on the CPU. Especially when there are many players next together. Other games don't even manage 60 fps in single player and that is usually easier compared to large scale games such as Battlefield. Those who are used to 120 Hz are just out of luck. It is not a game that is designed for 120 Hz.

Battlefield 2042 runs relatively well for me. I also play a lot more than I write but a few minutes ago I've had so many good rounds that I felt obliged to respond now. When it comes to hours of playtime this will definitely be one of the most played Battlefields after Battlefield V for me. Bad Company 2 was also okay but I can play it in Battllefield 2042 Portal and I'd rather play the current Battlefield 2042. Some just want a remastered old Battlefield. That would not be enough for me.
 
Last edited:
Jupiter said:
Mostly I don't care about the content creators. Hate is cool today. It's cool to hate stuff and it gets a lot of clicks and sells well. Many people are jumping on the hate bandwagon. There are some channels like YongYea that are only designed around hate.

Most people also think that Battlefield 5 is very bad although in my view it had the best combat on foot and a lot of interesting mechanics. In contrast, they praise Battlefield 4 which in my opinion had worse maps and was superfluous next to Battlefield 3. For many content creators Battlefield 2042 is too hard.

The frame rate is mostly lower than in other Battlefield games because the scale is much larger. There are far more vehicles and players here which increases the load on the CPU. Especially when there are many players next together. Other games don't even manage 60 fps in single player and that is usually easier compared to large scale games such as Battlefield. Those who are used to 120 Hz are just out of luck. It is not a game that is designed for 120 Hz.

Battlefield 2042 runs relatively well for me. I also play a lot more than I write but a few minutes ago I've had so many good rounds that I felt obliged to respond now. When it comes to hours of playtime this will definitely be one of the most played Battlefields after Battlefield V for me. Bad Company 2 was also okay but I can play it in Battllefield 2042 Portal and I'd rather play the current Battlefield 2042. Some just want a remastered old Battlefield. That would not be enough for me.
Click to expand...
Ya people are just choosing not to play an obviously brilliant game because hating it is more fun. Westie, Stodeh and lots of other long time battlefield focused content creators who have been die hard fans for over a decade just decided to up and stop making videos because because not making videos makes them more money. The idea that BF2042 being too hard is why pro-gamer level Battlefield veterans are moving on from the game is the icing on the cake here. An online shooter "not being designed for 120 fps" is an absurd statement.
 
Jupiter said:
Mostly I don't care about the content creators. Hate is cool today. It's cool to hate stuff and it gets a lot of clicks and sells well. Many people are jumping on the hate bandwagon. There are some channels like YongYea that are only designed around hate.

Most people also think that Battlefield 5 is very bad although in my view it had the best combat on foot and a lot of interesting mechanics. In contrast, they praise Battlefield 4 which in my opinion had worse maps and was superfluous next to Battlefield 3. For many content creators Battlefield 2042 is too hard.

The frame rate is mostly lower than in other Battlefield games because the scale is much larger. There are far more vehicles and players here which increases the load on the CPU. Especially when there are many players next together. Other games don't even manage 60 fps in single player and that is usually easier compared to large scale games such as Battlefield. Those who are used to 120 Hz are just out of luck. It is not a game that is designed for 120 Hz.

Battlefield 2042 runs relatively well for me. I also play a lot more than I write but a few minutes ago I've had so many good rounds that I felt obliged to respond now. When it comes to hours of playtime this will definitely be one of the most played Battlefields after Battlefield V for me. Bad Company 2 was also okay but I can play it in Battllefield 2042 Portal and I'd rather play the current Battlefield 2042. Some just want a remastered old Battlefield. That would not be enough for me.
Click to expand...
agreed. I purchased the game to play with my best friend online. Not saying that Stodeh and the likes might have a point in some ways, but for instance, saying that he doesnt like engineers chit-chat or that the maps are too open .... -has he ever played Battlefield 1 (great game) and BF V? Cos there is little cover.

The gamers I tend to trust the most are Mortismal Gaming -the best youtube channel imho, he reviews the games after 100% completion, and he has similar tastes to mine-, and Ye Old Entertainment (kinda similar to the other guy). That being said, the more they improve the game the better, imho, it was probably rushed 'cos of investors -capitalism- and EA.

Portal is a great addition, for sure, the best maps of BF in a single game....
 
Scott_Arm said:
people can like different things, but overall 2042 is the least liked battlefield game.
Click to expand...

Thats about as accurate as it can get, i think. The BF series has been getting progressively worse over time, going from BF1942/BF2 to BC2 (which was good in its own right, but not truly BF, it was a consolized experience as it was said by the BF community), BF3 to 4 and we all know what happened afterwards.
I think thats the largest problem with the BF series, and in special BF2042, that game is compared to the games prior to it. But lets compare 2042 to CoD, Halo, Apex and other popular online shooters, it is not that bad then. The largest differences to those games are that 2042 is starting out with alot of bugs and glitches, but that has always been the case with DICE's BF games, even BF2.

I find 2042 quite fun with friends and family, yes its no BF2 which i still play more, but then again im not expecting a true Battlefield anymore. Its too late for that, its all about simple, non-complex shooting these days. BF2 was the last true BF for me, with BF3 and 4 being Ok-ish. BF2 at the time was developed for the PC as a true pc game, with graphics/audio that were much better at the time relatively compared to what 2042 is doing, it had a deep squad/commander and ranking system, large maps and the true hardware/infantry teamplay we havent really seen since. BF2 was co-developed with team members from the Desert Combat mod for 1942, which is one of the reasons it was as impressive as it was.
BF2 is still being played today, full 64 slot servers running different maps aswell as competitive matches. Its more fun than 2042 and most, or any other online experience if you squad up with friends.
There are many mods out there aswell, which in todays games just doesnt exist anymore. And with that i mean total conversions, solid good mods that enhance the online MP (AIX, PR reality etc).
 
PSman1700 said:
Do you mean mbits? Otherwise 5/6mb/s is quite a good connection i think. If you mean 500/600kb/s then yes its going to take awhile to download and update it, but its possible to play if the upload is anywhere ok-ish....
I live in a mountain/rural area, i have fibre now (up to 1gb/s up/down), but prior to that i had anywhere between 200kb/s to 800kb/s depending on what time of the day it was. It was possible to play BF4 with up to two persons in the household. Took awhile to download though :p
Click to expand...
your previous connection is similar to mine, and today I decided to pull the plug and switch to a different internet service provider. I gotta pay a 40€ penalty 'cos of clauses related to fixed-term contracts, because the contract lasts until July, but I was happy before with my actual 20Mb/s connection, my previous internet provider worked fine for me, so I'm switching back. My current provider mentioned that their internet speed was "up to 150Mb/s". I didnt expect that, but I expected 40 to 50Mb/s at least... Never happened. Good riddance.

With my connection Battlefield 2042 is mostly unplayable, 'cos of the huge lag. Sometimes it works for 2 minutes, then it gets laggy -800ms to 1900ms, it depends- and I am done.
 
Cyan said:
agreed. I purchased the game to play with my best friend online. Not saying that Stodeh and the likes might have a point in some ways, but for instance, saying that he doesnt like engineers chit-chat or that the maps are too open .... -has he ever played Battlefield 1 (great game) and BF V? Cos there is little cover.

The gamers I tend to trust the most are Mortismal Gaming -the best youtube channel imho, he reviews the games after 100% completion, and he has similar tastes to mine-, and Ye Old Entertainment (kinda similar to the other guy). That being said, the more they improve the game the better, imho, it was probably rushed 'cos of investors -capitalism- and EA.

Portal is a great addition, for sure, the best maps of BF in a single game....
Click to expand...
Of course he’s played BFV and BF 1. BF1 was the last well regarded entry by fans. Extremely well made game with some bad design choices WRT the gunplay. The maps in BF1 are nothing like 2042. Cover and trenches are everywhere in BF1. The terrain is also typically very hilly. Maps in 2042 are mostly empty acres of 100% completely flat terrain.
 
Battlefield 1 was *not* well regarded by fans, sadly. That's probably a big reason why we're in this position - cuz DICE made a fantastic Battlefield game and yet everybody still whined and crapped all over it at the time. It's only been lately that people are looking back in hindsight and recognizing that it was genuinely great. So DICE had no idea what direction to actually take to make people happy. BF community is one of the most miserable on earth.
 
Seanspeed said:
Battlefield 1 was *not* well regarded by fans, sadly. That's probably a big reason why we're in this position - cuz DICE made a fantastic Battlefield game and yet everybody still whined and crapped all over it at the time. It's only been lately that people are looking back in hindsight and recognizing that it was genuinely great. So DICE had no idea what direction to actually take to make people happy. BF community is one of the most miserable on earth.
Click to expand...
imo. BF4 was the last great Battlefield game. BF1 was a mess at launch iirc(but again iirc BF4 also had server issues at launch). Only later did BF1 become decent.
 
Unknown Soldier said:
imo. BF4 was the last great Battlefield game. BF1 was a mess at launch iirc(but again iirc BF4 also had server issues at launch). Only later did BF1 become decent.
Click to expand...
BF1 wasn't a mess at launch at all. There's this weird myth that every BF game is terrible at launch and it's not really true. BF1 at launch was perfectly fine, both in terms of gameplay and technical polish. Probably the best BF on day 1 since BF3(and probably even better than that still).

BFV at launch was also technically pretty decent, but complaints around content were pretty widespread.
 
BF1 was by far the most polished launch of any mainline Battlefield. And it was well regarded by players as a very well developed title, just some issues with the gunplay from a design standpoint and hero pickups. Player numbers were strong well into the game’s lifecycle.
 
Last edited:
agreed, BF1 launch was about perfect. They released an alpha for expert players to play a few months and find bugs and issues, things to improve, etc. Then they released a beta that lasted like 2 months were again the most hardcore players kept polishing with suggestions. When they released the game, it was perfectly polished. That way of doing things was broken and forgotten when Battlefield V launched, and the result was that the game had to be fixed, which lasted a year, before it became decent
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top