This review is updated, i have left the original one below from years ago when the game was released to a rock bottom so depressing, the mentally ill seemed sane.


After nearly 2 to 3 years of updating the game, overhyping fixes and changes to claim fame where none was to be had, exciting a nonexistent fanbase with features previous titles had, i can actually consider this title to be much better, actually enjoyable, somewhat rewarding but still depressing.

The game might be much more interesting, fixed and polished, i will not remove my negative review because accountability should be held for charging people upwards of a 100$ CAD for a bare minimum of a playable experience (if not less... much, much less...). No Man's Sky gets a pass for freely improving itself over nearly a decade and garnering positive reception, but this mentality of release of now and fix it later that studios learnt was possible thanks to that story, is not only insulting, it completely misses the mark on why it worked with Hello Games.

You may buy this title of 5$ on a third party retailer website or a garbage bin at a decrepit Gamestop, but don't be fooled, this remains a bad game, and forever will be no matter the changes done to it.

False promises and lengthy wait times for minimal results after paying quality ensuring prices is ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ abysmal for lack of better words.



this was free, and i still don't recommend it

i played two normal conquest matches, hated them, operators still suck and are terrible design choices, and because of them teamwork doesn't exist. 128 players? might as well be 32, the maps are massive! and EMPTY. Destruction is dumbed down from even BF4, vehicles handle like garbage, sandbox elements are for the most part gone. I wish people who said "but every battlefield game launches with bugs and look at them now" realized bugs are 2042's last issue on the list.

i went to portal and logged onto a hardcore server with actual classes and teamwork, had fun, then realized i could save 80$ and play BF4 and BF1 instead...

I played this game during closed and open betas, and i feel robbed of my time in both of those, and especially since the full release is about as bad as those tests. I figured why not give it a shot, they patched some balance stuff and added HUD elements that were useful in BF3 and 4 that help with the flow of the game. Maybe they're on the right track!

Yeah no this is a lost cause, if they have to rely on Portal to attract a fanbase, while making a circus of the main game using terrible Siege style operators that break the flow of combat greatly and maps that are just unfun to play on, this is just a lost cause and BF is probably going to start getting overshadowed by AA or Indie dev tactical or Arcade Tacticool shooters like Squad or Insurgency, especially since one of those is coming to console.

[b] This review is updated, i have left the original one below from years ago when the game was released to a rock bottom so depressing, the mentally ill seemed sane. [/b] After nearly 2 to 3 years of updating the game, overhyping fixes and changes to claim fame where none was to be had, exciting a nonexistent fanbase with features previous titles had, i can actually consider this title to be much better, actually enjoyable, somewhat rewarding but still depressing. The game might be much more interesting, fixed and polished, i will not remove my negative review because accountability should be held for charging people upwards of a 100$ CAD for a bare minimum of a playable experience (if not less... much, much less...). No Man's Sky gets a pass for freely improving itself over nearly a decade and garnering positive reception, but this mentality of release of now and fix it later that studios learnt was possible thanks to that story, is not only insulting, it completely misses the mark on why it worked with Hello Games. You may buy this title of 5$ on a third party retailer website or a garbage bin at a decrepit Gamestop, but don't be fooled, this remains a bad game, and forever will be no matter the changes done to it. False promises and lengthy wait times for minimal results after paying quality ensuring prices is fucking abysmal for lack of better words. [h1] Old Review [/h1] this was free, and i still don't recommend it i played two normal conquest matches, hated them, operators still suck and are terrible design choices, and because of them teamwork doesn't exist. 128 players? might as well be 32, the maps are massive! and EMPTY. Destruction is dumbed down from even BF4, vehicles handle like garbage, sandbox elements are for the most part gone. I wish people who said "but every battlefield game launches with bugs and look at them now" realized bugs are 2042's last issue on the list. i went to portal and logged onto a hardcore server with actual classes and teamwork, had fun, then realized i could save 80$ and play BF4 and BF1 instead... I played this game during closed and open betas, and i feel robbed of my time in both of those, and especially since the full release is about as bad as those tests. I figured why not give it a shot, they patched some balance stuff and added HUD elements that were useful in BF3 and 4 that help with the flow of the game. Maybe they're on the right track! Yeah no this is a lost cause, if they have to rely on Portal to attract a fanbase, while making a circus of the main game using terrible Siege style operators that break the flow of combat greatly and maps that are just unfun to play on, this is just a lost cause and BF is probably going to start getting overshadowed by AA or Indie dev tactical or Arcade Tacticool shooters like Squad or Insurgency, especially since one of those is coming to console.