Why Did Battlefield 2042 Receive Overwhelmingly Negative Reviews?
Battlefield 2042 launched in November 2021 to scathing reception from reviewers and longtime Battlefield players alike. The game released in a notoriously buggy and content deficient state, with many core features franchise veterans had come to expect missing entirely.
Several of 2042‘s bold design choices also backfired, clashing with what the community wanted from a sequel to iconic entries like Battlefield 3 and 4. Technical issues plagued all versions at launch, and the game saw alarming drop offs in player counts following release.
So what went so wrong? Why did the latest entry in a storied AAA shooter series bomb critically and commercially? This article dives deeper into the myriad of reasons Battlefield 2042 rankled feathers from offering an unfinished experience to failing to understand its player base.
The Battlefield Series Set a High Bar for Scale and Polish
Beginning with 2002‘s Battlefield 1942, the Battlefield franchise established itself as a leading setter of trends and standards around large scale, multiplayer first person shooter gameplay. Subsequent entries focused on teamplay systems allowing players to combine arms and coordinate loadouts to take on objectives.
The series has built up goodwill over the years for pushing boundaries around expansive environments and chaotic simulation warfare highlighted by entries like Battlefield 3 and 4. Fans expect not just complex sandbox systems allowing emergent gameplay, but also a solid level of polish and stability with AAA production values.
Battlefield 3 received glowing praise in 2011 for its graphics, world building and multiplayer refinements. Battlefield 4 built on its successes in 2013 with robust post-launch support for 5 years, adding over 30 maps and multiple iconic modes like Gun Master.
Given this pedigree of well-supported games setting new trends in the online FPS genre, expectations coming into Battlefield 2042‘s reveal were sky high. Fans hoped 2042 would continue pushing boundaries around scale, fidelity, seamless environments and sandbox elements.
2042 Stumbled Out the Gate in a Buggy, Unoptimized State
Unfortunately what players got instead was a mess of bugs, glitches and performance issues dragging down the experience across PC and consoles. Persistent crashes greeted many users at launch unable to maintain stability. Snappable physics led to viral clips of tanks and other vehicles spiraling uncontrollably through the air.
The below table highlights documented errors compiled by players experienced either personally or reported frequently at launch:
| Error/Bug Category | Examples Reported |
|---|---|
| Crashing | Game freezing and CTDing during map load, spawn or gameplay |
| Visual Glitches | Texture pop-in, clipping/LOD issues (seeing through structures, floating guns) |
| Physics/Animation | Spinning vehicles, "sky swimming", ragdoll issues |
| Platform Unsupported | PC users unable to launch game, DXGI errors |
| Balancing Issues | Overpowered hovercrafts dominating maps |
| Connectivity Problems | Frequent server disconnections and rubber banding during matches |
These major technical issues persisted throughout November before fixes slowly started arriving. But the game‘s optimization remained extremely poor at launch even for higher end rigs.
Digital Foundry early benchmarks revealed dismaying performance results::
- 4K on an RTX 3090 ran at 38-58 FPS with drops below 30 at times
- 1440p benchmarks: RTX 3080 hit 55-70 FPS, 3070 ran at 38-55 FPS
CPU usage was also unusually high. Quad core systems struggled to maintain 60 FPS. Such steep requirements well above contemporaries for middling frame rates upset PC gamers excited to leverage new hardware.
Key Multiplayer Features Series Veterans Expected Were Missing
Alongside technical shortcomings, players were upset to discover Battlefield 2042 shipped without signature features and staples of previous entries in the core multiplayer experience including:
- No traditional class system: 2042 used restrictive Specialists system instead
- Removal of features like crouch sprinting and leaning
- No persistent lobbies or map voting between matches
- No scoreboard displaying deaths. Added later but still lacks full stats
- Simplified commo rose system lowering team play incentives
- Fewer in-depth weapon customization options
These omissions left fans feeling 2042 had actually regressed in gameplay refinements versus earlier titles. Teamplay and squad dynamics felt less emphasized without defined class roles. Limited HUD elements granting battlefield awareness made matches feel more disjointed.
Taking away fan favorite legacy features combined with failing to introduce much novelty beyond weather events left unfulfilled expectations of pushing boundaries.
Map Designs Were Overly Sparse and Large
The launch map selection available also aggravated players for lacking character and density relative to legacy entries. To showcase 2042‘s marque 128 player support, maps sprawled out to the game‘s biggest scales yet.
But without providing adequate cover and combat zones properly distributed across areas this large, much time was spent just traversing dead space and running empty sight lines not engaging enemies:
| Map | Criticisms |
|---|---|
| Renewal | Vast dead landscape between capture points, urban micro meatgrinder area by towers |
| Breakaway | Points too spread out over glacial environment, open sightlines |
| Orbital | Miles of long treks between spawn and priority sectors (rocket hangar, laboratory) |
| Hourglass | Lacking infantry cover from storms, disjointed flow relying on vehicles |
The decision to scale maps primarily outward rather than upward also dragged pacing down. Lofty skyscrapers and shifting terrain seen in classics like Siege of Shanghai were rare beyond Kaleidoscope‘s stranded shipwreck. This decreased variety in firefight dynamics and terrain interactions.
Specialists System Disrupted Class Balance and Role Queueing
The new Specialist system emphasizing hero shooter mechanics was potentially the most divisive change. Instead of Assault/Engineer/Support/Recon classes binding gadgets and weapons accordingly, Specialists with unique perks can use any gear.
This shook up the rock-paper-scissors counterplay long time players relied on however. Enemies were harder to immediately identify and counter by function as you would spotting say…an Assault player‘s uniform. You also lost guarantees of ammo or health replenishment from seeing certain classes on your squad.
While widening loadout freedom, the system also enabled combinations like entire teams fielding grappling hooks or ballistic shields. This pulled further away from strategic squad role assignment and leveraging strengths across unit types.
Content Offering at Launch Was Sparse Versus Past Games
Battlefield 2042 also faltered in amount of content available at launch relative to past series entries. The following table compares maps and firearms included out the gate:
| Game | MP Maps at Launch | Total Weapons at Launch |
|---|---|---|
| Battlefield 4 (2013) | 10 | Over 80 firearms + attachments |
| Battlefield 1 (2016) | 9 infantry maps, 6 vehicle focused | Around 50 guns per class |
| Battlefield V (2018) | 8 | Over 50 |
| Battlefield 2042 | 7 | 22 |
This quantifiable deficits angered fans who paid full price for what felt like a stripped down experience sold piecemeal. 2042 shipped with 25% less maps but 63% fewer weapons than Battlefield 4 at launch. Fan favorite modes like Rush weren‘t even added until later.
Plummeting Player Counts Reflected Community Rejection
Perhaps the most damning indictment of 2042‘s failures was the rapid fall off in players shortly after launch month. According to publicly tracked statistics on Steam exclusively:
- Battlefield 2042 peaked at over 100,000 concurrent players at launch
- But dropped below 10,000 players within 2 weeks
- Hit under 2,000 daily players by February 2022, 4 months post-release
For comparison Battlefield 4 and 1 have both maintained 2-3X higher numbers 4+ years post-launch. This quantifies anecdotes of swathes of veterans leaving 2042 quickly from disinterest and frustration.
Developer Support Improved Game But Fell Short for Many
DICE should receive due credit for committing to improve Battlefield 2042 despite its reception. Their roadmap has delivered meaningful quality of life updates, new content, and stability fixes.
The game unquestionably plays better now than the broken state it launched as. Yet after a year on sale now, feedback remains mixed on whether core issues around restrictive design and lack of teamplay incentives have been rectified enough. Veterans hoped for an experience capturing what made Battlefield 3-4 exceptional.
What 2042 does deliver just still feels hollow or unremarkable to some. Specialists play the same; maps remain big but empty. The sprint to mimic trendy hero shooters and battle royale scale lost sight of franchise foundations around squad play. This misalignment of community expectations no patch can fully redeem.
Outlook: Can 2042 Regain Goodwill and Players?
While BF 2042 marked a commercial disappointment failing to meet EA’s sales targets, it hopefully serves the team well as a learning experience going forward. DICE seems to have embraced community calls for going back to basics, confirming the next Battlefield returns to classes and a modern setting.
Still for BF 2042 itself, the road remains long to rebuild trust and player numbers after such a fumbled launch riddled with question marks. Fierce competition seeing renewed interest in older series titles like Battlefield 4 and annualized releases like Call of Duty strain the player pool further.
Ultimately for EA’s investment into the massive project to pay off, 2042 must find ways to offer an experience compelling enough to woo jaded but willing fans. If core issues still linger too strongly in veterans’ minds though, interest may continue waning regardless of quality updates down the pipeline.
