opinion: Battlefield 2042 advertises itself with many superlatives. 128-player matches, gigantic maps, epic tornadoes – but it’s here that Dimi smells trouble.
Marketing is a difficult job – especially for long-lasting shooter series. You have to put something on the box, even though after all these years (and all these games) not every promise is going to get people behind the stove. New maps? New weapons? Oh well.
And when you then trumpet from the rooftops in a deep voice and in full honesty “Battlefield 5! World War II again for a change”, many fans shrug their shoulders after all the World War CoDs and Battlefields. If Call of Duty: Vanguard is indeed set in the Second World War again, I’m very curious to see how Activision will sell it as “fresh” and “exciting”.
Battlefield 2042 has the same challenge. “Battlefield 2042! The game that returns to the Battlefield 4 scenario two years too late.” Sure, huge maps, 128-player matches, those are impressive frame rates. But somehow you have to promote the sausage tastily at the hotdog, not just the bun. So the sausage here is the gameplay identity and … OK, I’ll leave the silly metaphors.
What I’m saying is that Battlefield 2042 shouts from the rooftops that it wants to deliver those unique Battlefield moments you love the series for again. In principle, that’s exactly the right direction, too. And what better way to sum up the chaos of battle than with a tornado?! In the middle of the match, a whirlwind will sweep across the map, restricting your vision, knocking friend and foe alike off their feet. Sound good? Not at all.
Cancel this stupid tornado
Recently, there have just been more alleged leaks about how poorly the Tornado feature works in practice. Tom Henderson, who is considered quite reliable overall despite some false statements, reports internal developer feedback:
Early feedback of the tornadoes in #BATTLEFIELD2042 are essentially "they are fun and cool to see for the first few times, but they become very repetitive and ruin the classic BF experience and flow of the map"
— Tom Henderson (@_Tom_Henderson_) July 12, 2021
You often see this kind of feedback with gimmick features like this, supposedly big new features that are good to put on the box. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare at the time had “more realism” with its campaign striving for “authenticity” and new multiplayer features. You could tactically place guns on walls, open doors just a crack at will – and in the end all that was just window dressing that hardly anyone (except my colleague Steffi) really used.
I liked these features, by the way. But you notice how important concrete innovations are, especially in the shooter segment, which can be clearly outlined from a marketing point of view. Even worse was the infamous Battlefield 5 reveal trailer, which tried to sell DICE’s new vision of World War II as being as sexy, hip and tailored to the Fortnite audience as possible. The campaign was a bit of a letdown.
Battlefield 2042 is the exact opposite of the trailer for part five at the time. The Reveal trailer wants to tell the fans almost obtrusively: We know exactly what the Battlefield community is into. Jumping out of the jet in flight with a bazooka and then climbing back into the cockpit? Easy. Levolution destruction? Sure, now even with tornadoes. But what DICE should definitely not forget: these brilliant Battlefield moments never conflicted with a good multiplayer shooter – and that’s exactly what I fear with Battlefield 2042.
Good is not always sexy
What Battlefield 2042 needs first and foremost is so dry and stodgy it won’t fit on any advertising poster: smooth shooter gameplay. No Battlefield of the past failed because there were too few fancy gimmicks. Just think of the gigantic zeppelins from Battlefield 1. For years, the series has stumbled over precisely the core virtues that every good shooter needs: team and weapon balance, map and gameplay diversity, playful depth.
As stupid as it sounds now: Battlefield 2042 must first and foremost be a good multiplayer shooter that fans simply can’t keep their hands off. There is a completely unanimous tenor among my friends, acquaintances and colleagues. We simply want captivating modern military gameplay. Without unnecessary frills, without Pay2Win junk, without balancing fuckups. Out of a good battlefield sandbox, those “Battlefield moments” emerge all by themselves.
But when I’m trying to capture a checkpoint with my buddies, we come up with some fabulous tactics, only to get blown out of the picture again and again by a tornado – I can already see how much that’s going to upset me. Battlefield moments are my own personal memories. When I held a ruined house against hordes of enemies with two friends and the enemy had to bring in so many people that the advance was completely stalled – that’s what makes Battlefield unique for me.
A tornado sweeping across the map is the exact opposite of such Battlefield moments. It is a leveller that literally shakes up balance, team positions and tactics. This may cause wonder the first time around, but I just can’t see how it adds to the gameplay experience in the long run.
Marketing: Yes, but …
Currently I’m playing Insurgency: Sandstorm and every time I think to myself: that’s all it needs. A down-to-earth shooter with gripping gunplay – off we go. But the player numbers speak a different language. Insurgency is scraping by with a player count of 3,000 – that would be a disaster for a Battlefield. I can see why mainstream shooters need megalomaniac marketing. And why a “We’re making Battlefield – but this time with good balancing” is not enough.
That’s why my only appeal to DICE would be: Don’t go too far. Don’t let the advertising promises become a constraint that ultimately harms the actual gameplay. Tame the tornado – and if it turns out to be an aerial act (hehe), then rather put it outside the door.
What do you think?
