Escuche esta historia
--:--
8:29
Everything we know about the new multiplayer Battlefield 2042
I n the last two installments of 'Battlefield', DICE and Electronic Arts have put aside the current fighting to place us in the First and Second World War with 'Battlefield 1' and 'Battlefield V'.
The two games did a lot of things right, dominating in multiplayer, yet they additionally faded at certain angles, for example the story or trailer they brought to the company.
Nowadays comes 'Battlefield 2042', which puts aside the conflictive confrontations of yesteryear (for which its fundamental opponent, 'Call Of Duty: Vanguard', has bet) to take us to the current combats.
At last, we return to a conflict struggle closer to our days, with more current weapons, immense situations and 128 players willing to give wax in the definitely known modes and in the new ones, which are the most intriguing.
The main modes, specifically, are: Conquest, Advance, Danger Zone and Portal.
I have played 'Battlefield 1' and 'Battlefield V' a number of hours greater than I am going to allow in an article. In both I have agreed with the experts that the story mode was little worked.
The one from 'Battlefield 1' did not convince me and the one from 'Battlefield V' seemed crazy to me. There was no nuance regarding what the brand offered us in previous titles, especially in 'Bad Company', and to put it bluntly, the mission was not essential.
To such an extent that in 'Battlefield 2042' there is no mission, directly. It is a multiplayer game designed solely and exclusively to play online. There is no mission that serves as a preamble to acclimatize to the controls and the dropping of slugs that the public loves so much. The game gives us a guide loaded with different players willing to make us mincemeat. What's more, it's not terrible.
Although previous games made the mission accessible to us, the real experience was multiplayer. That EA has decided to get rid of it does not seem unreasonable to me.
There will be customers who will miss it, but honestly, a "war zone" is really nice playing against other players. In any case, a good choice will undoubtedly produce a discussion.
Conquer zone and advance
We start with the best known modes from the previous parts: Conquest and Advancement, both remembered by Total War. They are, more or less, as old as the past times.
Beyond the guides, which are larger, and the number of players, which is 128 on cutting edge and PC (64 on old-gen), the game modes continue as before.
In Conquest, you have to overcome and shield regions to mark foci and in Advance you have to assault / safeguard regions to prevent the enemy from progressing / making you retreat. It is precisely the same.
The main rarity is the guides, which are currently tremendous. The facts really confirm that all 'Battlefield' maps have been huge, however this version is somewhat different. There are maps that are ridiculous, particularly Rupture, Orbital, and Discard.
They are gigantic, excessively tremendous, to the point that they are not remunerated with the number of players. Indeed, there are currently 128 players on the field, however, the guides are more distributed, so, unless you drive a vehicle or stay in charge of a space, you run the risk of taking long walks without experiencing anyone.
In addition, the fact that the guides are so huge means something that we already found in the initial sensations, and it will be that there are many regions that we will not visit.
The most typical thing is that it goes from A direct to B and C in an orderly manner, without taking into account the rest of the components of the guide. That, despite everything, does not imply that the guides are not worked, since they are. The guides are noteworthy. There aren't many, maybe not many (only seven), but the ones that do exist are great.
Each guide has its own procedure and allows us to use various weapons. For example, Hourglass (Qatar) joins the conflicts of significant distance on the ridges with those of short distance in the space of the sand or at the intersection of streets.
Burst (Antarctica), the biggest guide to the establishment to date, is something very similar, while Manifest (a business port in Singapore) encourages the use of submachine guns and shotguns in the labyrinth of cargo compartments.
The guides are insane, to put it bluntly. They are very funny, with a certain verticality in certain spots and in practically all of them it is appreciated from being infantry, controlling an airplane or helicopter to supporting from behind with a rifleman or a light automatic weapon.
That, combined with the degree of detail and dynamic changes make the experience vivid.
For example, in Orbital (the map of rockets) you realize that depending on what happens in the game the rocket will take off or detonate, while in Hourglass you must manage dust storms and the perception of powerlessness.
That the guides are dynamic gives that extra soaking to the game. What has not convinced me so much, for example, are the environmental peculiarities?
During the exam I have been through dust storms and cyclones and in all cases we have ended up running away from them instead of trying to explode them (as we found in the trailer).
They are fun because they are eccentric and because they adjust the guide (it begins to rain, or you perceive how the sand floods the field of vision), however, facing the game, their impact on interactivity is little.
What worries me about the guides, due to the fact that there are quite a few, is that they are totally enormous, to the point that the activity will generally focus on specific foci, which are usually the ones with the most victorious foci close.
Actually, the game does not give any real excuse to move between various places, since an area that is miles away is probably not going to be defeated by an opponent. It will do it in the long term, but really the activity is reduced to two or three central themes, for example, the Orbital rocket zone or the ship in Discard. That, in a game of 45 minutes and in such a huge guide, gets tiring.
As for the Advance, I have found it more tumultuous than in previous portions. The spotlights to be controlled are excessively close to each other, which makes you continually bite the dust, respawning, kicking the board and constantly respawning, the clearest model being the Renewal map.
I have not seen that essential point that was in different titles of the adventure, and it is a shame, given that the guides have space to isolate the spotlights a bit more.
Given the proximity of the spotlights, it is feasible for a player to win a point with a furnished ground vehicle and then take cover in a highly perceptible space, covering the two spotlights without being within range of the opponents.
It is a gameplay to some extent uneven. The collective part of the game is also not energized, and the ongoing interaction generally feels somewhat soulless.
Unlike other games, for example, 'Battlefront 2' or 'Warzone', which divide the attack into stages and guide the player a bit, in 'Battlefield 2042' the main thing that isolates one stage from another is losing the area.
Weapons, specialists and vehicles
Before proceeding to the following game modes, we must briefly dwell on weapons, classes, and vehicles. Speaking in silver, there are not many weapons.
For example, there are only two LMGs, four rifles, and four submachine guns. I have to accept that in the long run more will be added, and the title will be renewed, but for the moment the index is reduced to a score of weapons.
The weapons store is scarce and that leads me to imagine that it would not be surprising if the game was reduced to using the rifle, submachine gun or rifleman that does the most damage, leaving the rest of the options unrecognized.
What is great is the customization framework. Each weapon has four extras (sight, ammo, barrel, and bottom connection).
From the respawn screen we can organize each weapon to carry two or three extras for each branch (two sights, two barrels, two lower connections...) and switch between any of them at any time during the game with the Plus frame.
In this way, we can adjust the weapon to the specific circumstance (iron sight for melee battle and with more amplification for the battle on the march, silencer for the assaults, etc.). This frame works amazingly and is a welcome expansion.
The weapons feel amazing. The roundness of the sound, hearing the projectiles fall to the ground, the force and how the force of each weapon is directed everywhere is great. However, my impression is that the chance of killing is exceedingly high.
You have to spend a lot of bullets to shoot the enemies, especially in the more distant battles, but also in the close ones.
Also, to make it stand out, the ability to lean from a corner to aim from cover has been lost. Outlook could be improved.
