BF3 wasnt a " Bad game " like COD arena But BF2042 is a true Comb

[-DFA-Thump]

@Stew360 You can keep pushing this narrative, but 98.5% see BF2042 for the hero shooter failure that it is bud.

[EA_Mako]

Hey folks, we've had to remove and/or moderate a number of posts in this thread recently due to violations of the posting guidelines.

You certainly don't have to agree with anyone else's thoughts on the game, but please be respectful when responding and keep your posts on-topic.

---

• Keep it on-topic. If someone created a thread, it's because they're looking for an answer to their question or want to discuss a specific topic. Changing the topic of the thread isn't helpful.
• Don't be rude. No matter what your feelings are about other people, EA Forums aren't the place to attack another person. That includes public figures, EA employees, or other forum users.

[Fringerunner]

Combined arms means infantry and armor/air supporting each other to achieve a goal.

We did have combined arms in BF3, 4 as well, slightly less in 1 and 5 with the advent of the abomination that is "press x to repair" and absolutely comical AA/aircraft balancing (looking at you again 1 and 5).

Armor or air pushing forward solo shouldn't be a kill streak waiting to happen, it should be suicide which it was on any half-decent server in 3 or 4.

Combined arms also doesn't mean every other player in a damn hovercraft or bigger and maps so open it's basically a shooting gallery for vehicles more than anything, in the sense of combined arms BF2042 isn't even trying.

Also, as someone who did play BF3 quite a bit and regarding weapons, I'll second what others have said before in the thread, the M16 was not "meta" in the slightest, it was the easy middle ground, but it go beat out in both TTK and effective range handily by a G3 with a heavy barrel (especially on effective range/damage drop-off there) and smoked by any AN-user who had figured out that two-shot bursts had an insane ROF and could tap decently fast without shifting their POI too much and was an even better laser-beam gun.

The M16 certainly saw a lot of use, but that's simply because it was easy to use and required little in the way of learning or recoil control.

Like someone posted earlier in the thread, my top two guns used in that game were the G3 and AN by some distance, the M16 only got a look-in to get the unlocks done, then it collected dust after that.

Oh, and regarding the COD comparisons, infantry only maps in BF3 with no explosives were *head and shoulders* above CoD at the time.

Free-for-all servers were indeed just a giant mess, but the ones that were well moderated/constantly balanced (almost without exception having no/very limited explosives) and with server-specific player stat trackers and ban lists were an absolute blast to play on.

Then again if the mood struck, so were armor-only or even plane-only servers.

Here's the kicker, you could play all of those modes in 3 on top of normal BF and they were all populated, you could play *any* style you wanted.

I honestly don't mind if someone "loves" 2042 even if i don't, but spouting absolute nonsense about previous titles just to try to justify your own stance just makes it look like you never actually played those old titles or you don't quite understand the terms you're throwing around.

[PapaDrach]

Looks like OP cherry picked BF3. I'd much rather play BF3 than lie to myself and say the "Combined Arms" Bf2042 is a true BF game. Sure maybe at its core, but the systems in place and design was very, very poorly executed. BF3 has open maps, vehicles, Infantry vs Infantry vs Vehicles....classes, sandbox elements,

[Tank2042Man]

---

@PapaDrach wrote:

Looks like OP cherry picked BF3. I'd much rather play BF3 than lie to myself and say the "Combined Arms" Bf2042 is a true BF game. Sure maybe at its core, but the systems in place and design was very, very poorly executed. BF3 has open maps, vehicles, Infantry vs Infantry vs Vehicles....classes, sandbox elements,

---

I've got 300+ hours in 2042 and have been playing battlefield for as long as OP.

2042 is just another entry in the series that requires different tactics to account for what is probably the most faced paced battlefield release in the series.

I genuinely think the maps are some of the most diverse and interesting maps battlefield has launched with for a long while.

Do I prefer BF4 at this stage, probably, but let's see what 2042 is like once they start the balancing phase.

[JOGAGATYA]

Stew, I think the biggest problem in most players eyes is that battlefield 2042 lost its masculinity. It is the cheesy lines for them and non-military looks of characters etc. it does not change the gameplay for me at all and I don’t mind them but I’m OK if they change them too. There is also the herd mentality at play. Lots of people don’t want to lose friends over this or seem uncool making up their own minds not joining them with the hate. Also for some people it’s hard to admit that they were wrong before or hard to change their minds if convinced. It’s just a human condition. The game has problems, yes. But as Stew stated it’s not as bad as people paint it for sure. I for one try to post constructive criticism because I want the game to thrive I don’t want it to die off.  I would like to play it for a few years. Portal has a lots of potential as well. 

[cso7777]

I don't really get these posts.

The player-count says it all.

Dice has postponed new content to 'summer', because they admit that game has failed and it needs a lot of changes, to have any chance gaining any popularity again.

Not even EA/Dice are defending the game anymore, so why waste time on the forums, trying to defend the game?

[edgecrusherO0]

@JOGAGATYA "lost its masculinity"

Literally what the hell does this even mean. Cheesy lines at the end have nothing to do with masculinity/femininity.

"herd mentality"

Somehow I don't think anyone is losing friends over saying they enjoy BF2042. If they are, those were terrible, awful, no-good 'friends' to begin with.

I agree that there's some hyperbole in the criticism the game receives at time, but that's largely a result of the community being abandoned to stew in negativity since the start of the year as DICE have been unwilling to communicate or engage. Plus the fact that the only information we are getting comes from a known and trusted leaker and includes things like a town hall where EA (denies) blaming Halo Infinite for many of the launch problems BF2042 faced.

Until DICE starts becoming a better source of information than a guy on Twitter, this extra negativity will remain.

[Tank2042Man]

@edgecrusherO0 Lol, the negative reaction to the 'cheesey' lines and female bad 'posteriors' rubbing your face in it have a lot to do with fragile egos and masculinity.

I'm past that point in life where I care about such things but I get why young males who like playing war games would find that an issue.

[Stew360]

@-DFA-Thump
Its not a hero shooter . Specialist are basically a " living gadjet reconizable skin " that player can identify ..

Hero shooters are Primary weapon , Primary ability & or secondary ability , Ultimate Similar to a dumbdown MMO characters similar to Global agenda , Firefall or Paladin or Overwatch .. This as nothing to do with BF2042 ..

Corny lines are tho inspired by Apex legends style . And the Battlefield entrance animations inspired by Titanfall wich is fine to me if there was some sort of transport for the left over troops lol

This type of narative isnt rooted in facts ..

Specialist are Subclass of 1 genre that are " locked " with1 predictable gadjet and traits .. Its between BF2 and BF4 and Loadout are a good thing because now we dont have 1000 billions assault or recon just because players wanted snipers or AR ...

BF4 classes meant nothing because of the extend of the custumisation yet i havnt seen an " outrage " about BF4 classes system lol