Battlefield 2042 revealed with October 2021 release date
We not only got a title and a look at gameplay, but we also learned exactly we'll be able to play Battlefield 2042 this coming October.
Fans have been waiting quite a while to see exactly what Electronic Arts and DICE have in store for us with the latest Battlefield game. Leaks, early reports, and speculation have run rampant surrounding the game, but we finally arrived at the day of the big reveal and it did not disappoint. We finally have a name. It’s Battlefield 2042, and what’s more, we know when it’s coming too. The game is set to launch in mid-October 2021.
EA and DICE did the big reveal for the new Battlefield game in a reveal livestream on June 9, 2021. It was here that we got a trailer revealing our first look at the game. As was rumored and leaked previously, it was finally confirmed here with the Battlefield 2042 reveal that this game will take place in the near future. As such, it will feature familiar (if not slightly enhanced) weaponry and a host of tech gadgets and gear, though not tremendously outlandish. Perhaps most importantly, we got a release date. Battlefield 2042 is set to launch on October 22, 2021.
That wasn’t quite all. According to details shared on the Battlefield 2042 FAQ page, there will be beta sessions coming later this year with early access available for those who pre-order. Expect updates on this soon.
There has been some fantastic speculation in regards to Battlefield 2042. Some of the most interesting includes all new levels of dynamic weather and day/night cycles as the game goes on. The trailer teased this as well, including references to a Category 6 hurricane hitting the United States and more. It feels like battles in Battlefield 2042 are set to be their most dramatic and over-the-top yet.
Stay tuned leading up to the October 22 release date as we await further details and info on Battlefield 2042. We’ll have them posted right here at Shacknews as they become available.
-
Shacknews
replyTJ Denzer posted a new article, Battlefield 2042 revealed with October 2021 release date
-
Four hours until the next Battlefield game is revealed!!
Crank this up loud and get hyped. https://open.spotify.com/track/3LBzYSJzJVCyff1bLBOzcr?si=728d88cd67474f98
Reveal live https://youtu.be/ASzOzrB-a9E-
I still prefer the OG theme https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzIg81IRuoU
Man I had fun with that game.-
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
-
-
Screenshots here https://twitter.com/okami13_/status/1402592386975375365?s=21
-
They gonna go hard on the gimmicky bullshit again. Do people really want tornadoes popping off all the time? wth.
Sounded dumb when it first leaked, looks sillier in action. But I'm sure it will make for trailers and screens that some folks will non-stop jizz over.
Other leaked bullet points I can't get hyped about: 128 players when they haven't been able to make 64 work well in recent games, and largest maps ever when they can't design a good and balanced normal sized map to save their lives. Yet some are gone be foaming at the mouth for all that, no doubt.
On paper it comes across like they think more is better and these things are needed to sell the game after some previous blunders. Not that it will make a good Battlefield, but that is my shitty skeptical prediction, we will see when it's playable.
The fact that the leaks which are touting these grand scale upgrades also mention the return of Rush which has only ever worked well on narrow maps specifically designed for that mode and 12v12 players makes me think they still have no idea what game they want to make again. Pick a friggen lane again, DICE. Sheesh.-
EA Games School of Development Rules:
1) More is always better. More, more, more!!!
2) Bigger is always better.
3) Louder is always better.
4) Keep remixing the music to make it EVEN MORE INTENSE AND EXTREME!!!
5) Properly balanced game modes? Who fucking needs that, when we can offer INFINITE game modes!
6) Cosmetics, guys. Cosmetics are the absolute bedrock of all modern games. There need to be more of them, and they need to be shinier than ever before.
7) Ridiculously intense and over-the-top reveal trailers. Make sure you spend roughly 20% of the entire budget on that alone.
8) Profit
-
-
Hard not to be skeptical as a big BF fan since 1942 after how they mishandled BFV. I really loved some aspects of the beta and even the launch version, but from then on it like they were throwing darts and the wall and making radical changes again and again, which did nothing but leave an extremely bad taste in my mouth. I hated what that game became and how they didn't know what the hell they were doing with it. They have a lot to prove to win me back. Call that jaded if you want. For me it's being practical.
At first I thought all the long time developer departures during BFVs run might be a good thing for what comes next, but then I see all this nonsense and can't help but reconsider that notion.
-
-
Yeah I'd rather see smaller maps and smaller player count if it means the maps can be more dynamic and complex with a return to fully destructible terrain and buildings like BC2.
-
BFV had all that.
-
I was under the impression that buildings couldn't be fully destroyed, a la BC2.
-
The structure destruction is even more detailed in V, as is the terrain destruction. Entire levels get torn apart and there's craters to hide in everywhere! You can drive tanks through parts of buildings while others stay somewhat intact, and bullets can shoot through structure materials like wood accurately with a decent damage reduction model.
-
Well that's pretty damn cool!
-
-
-
-
-
Feel the opposite!
-
I mean the game is called Battlefield and its intention from the very first game was to create a battlefield-like experience instead of the tiny corridor shooters we had been used to. Here was a game where you could be infantry or in a tank, boat, or plane... the next logical step has/should have always been larger battlefields with more players not smaller maps with smaller player counts; that to me is the antithesis of what makes a unique Battlefield experience.
-
How do you reconcile that with the fact they still want to do things like Rush which we've seen only work well in those smaller, focused theaters?
Or the fact that seemingly half the fanbase or more at this point greatly prefers smaller scale CQB and infantry only maps to all out vehicular warfare because the Battlefield that hooked them was mainly about that?
Or the fact that they'll no doubt once again be cramming 3-8 extra and unnecessary game modes for those people, onto maps that aren't designed for anything particular again?
It's become a running joke how they feel like they have to cater to everyone who's played any random Battlefield. I'd much prefer them get back to a singular thing like conquest and do that well. Even if it was larger scale 128 player path, a whole game focused on that one thing would actually have potential and give me hope. Same as if they went back to Bad Company instead and focused solely on Rush, even though that was never my thing. The singular focus made for a better game in the end, the shoe-horned in conquest on those narrow maps sucked because the maps were specifically built for Rush, but whole game is looked upon fondly largely because it was so all about that one thing and nothing else, and did that one thing well. Same as how 1942 and BF2 did Conquest well. Most modern Battlefields have had a huge identity crisis, and now it feels like it's only getting worse.
I'm glad people can still be excited about the franchise, though. Hope it works out in the end for all.-
For one your “facts” aren’t facts, they are assumptions and poor ones at that. You assume most Battlefield players want smaller maps? I find that pretty shocking nor do I believe that. There are so many other modern FPS that do what you want, play those. You make a lot of assumptions here so I’m not going to make a big thing of it other than you can sit in that cynical corner and I’m gonna stand here in excitement for the reveal of the next Battlefield game.
-
You'd be surprised how many BF players hate vehicles and large maps. This isn't even a fully modern revelation, it goes back to BF2 where some of the small scale versions of maps designed for 16-32 players and had limited or no vehicle spawns would be massively opular on servers running 64 players. Or the popularity of 24/7 meat grinders and spam fests of Metro & Locker and others in BF3 & BF4. Instant action,xp points go uuuup, unlocks come fast, wee.
They know where their bread is buttered, they know what the masses want. They will have to have all that crap in this one, too. Even as they tout gigantic maps and increased player counts and all that as being the draw for this one to reel in some suckers.-
This is ridiculous, you want a game that is out there available right now - go play Rainbow Six, COD, Counter Strike, etc. They have tiny maps with tiny player counts and no vehicles. Also, I since we are making lots of assumptions, I assume they’ll have giant maps condensed down to small sections for smaller player counts where there are no or fewer vehicles in different modes - that no one will play because for all the bitching you claim, which I do believe there is a lot of bitching, everyone still plays regular ol’ conquest.
-
You got me all wrong, that's not what I want at all, just what I expect because they just cannot escape all that.
That's what a large portion of the fans want, that's the what DICE has been trying to cater to since Bad Company and especially BF3 when Domination made its first appearance. And keeping modes like that and Rush and TDM alive with each iteration. It's not just the smaller scale stuff like War Pigeons they tried, but the meat grindy infantry focused modes with every Battlefield since. Have you never played modes like Frontlines or Outpost? Did you miss that game mode for BFV they called GRIND? Haha.-
I only play conquest.
-
Conquest = Battlefield
-
BFV was one of the worst offenders for fans of the classic large scale vehicular combat and conquest. I was pretty bewildered that only 3 of the launch conquest maps were larger and actually had more than a couple of ground vehicles per side (Hamada, Twisted Steel, Arras). The majority were largely compact and mainly infantry focused.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Correction ..how they feel like they have to cater to everyone who's played any random Battlefield first person shooter at this point. The rise of Call of Duty and feeling like they need to compete and include similar modes, smaller maps, infantry only focused stuff no doubt set them down this path of trying to do too much and failing to do one thing well path initially. They need to get back to doing their own thing and say fuck all the rest.
Lets see how many game modes they announce for this one. I'm guessing at least 6. If it's just 2 I will be thrilled. -
This is a ridiculous take.
They make Conquest only: like you said, half the people will complain it's not CQB and Rush. Make another BC2: half will complain about Conquest not being there.
BF1 & V shoehorned in both into maps and it worked well. Not sure why they can't do it again.-
It did not work well at all, the jack of all trades map design did not work well in BF3, BF4, BF1, or BFV.
I think BF1 was the last game to do one thing well, and that was Operations. It was the big new thing, and the maps there actually felt 100% designed for that mode, while they were random hit and miss everywhere else, mostly miss.
While BF3 on the whole was the start of their jack of all trades approach, combining Conquest with Rush after the popular of Bad Company, the Close Quarters expansion which was stripped down and narrowly focused was wildly popular because it disregarded all that. Just did that one thing well. I personally hated it because that's not why I play Battlefield, but I can at least see why it was more successful and worked better than the rest.-
lol Operations maps were just the regular maps you're complaining about! This is malarkey.
-
In BFV it did feel a bit like that.
BF1 which introduced Operations, most of them were built out like gigantic Rush maps, with multiple attack / defend stages on long, linear paths that went way beyond the borders of the conquest versions of those same maps. So many of those individual Operations stages felt completely designed with a a unique frontline in mind, a specific area for defenders to defend. While the Conquest variants really didn't feel built for Conquest at all. It really felt like they dropped flags in random spots, it wasn't very fun, at times it wound up being the epitome of games of conquest devolving to musical flags. I just didn't understand what they were going for with Conquest on those maps, while Operations made sense most of the time. While in BFV, almost nothing made sense to me. Was lucky if any mode made sense on any of those maps, lots of slogs and trying out different modes just to see what actually played well on them and still coming up with next to nothing.-
Gotta play Frontlines mode!
-
Until they take it away, haha. I did play some Frontlines in both games, but the fact that they had so many game modes in BFV and kept adding more, that they had to remove and rotate some of them out just so others got played, should be sign enough that they're trying to do way too much with this franchise and need to drill down and focus on just one or two things again.
-
That makes me wonder if the people most excited for this new game even played enough BFV to know about ridiculous shit like that.
In the last few months since the leaks for BF6 started, it seemed like the people around here most interested in this new BF were the ones saying they skipped over BF1 or BFV or both. I definitely understand that.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Is it going to be Rush-only?
Or can you just play the modes you like same as always?
You seem to want Battlefield made just for you but, as you've said, they do have to try to target a broad base of fans and that's going to include multiple modes, some of which work better than others.-
If they were to actually design unique maps for and balance them around these wildly different game modes, that would be one thing. They simply cannot and will not do that, and that's been one of the biggest issues with the modern versions of the series.
It's a huge crapshoot as to whatever mode shoehorned into each large and different Battlefield map location template actually winds up playing well.
-
I fully agree - MAP DESIGN and testing is what works. whoever is on the CoD team for warzone and MP needs to be poached by DICE/EA and showcase how TDM/MP/Groundwar/full scale royale/gunfight/etc can work in the battlefield universe. they obviously got it right... so right, that all their games have to be able to be fused into Warzone. they did it *THAT* well.
THAT is how to make a game that sticks. in no way should battlefield ever only be one mode like conquest - it means it dies. or, if they do want only one mode, it becomes a "living ongoing battle" like planetside 2. which also means it failed.
the way forward is map design... but when you involve tanks and jets and helicopters it gets tricky. people want instant fun - where fortnite took the world by storm is there are no objectives. you just build and kill the enemy. SIMPLE. battlefield on the other hand ALWAYS has objectives, which by its inherent nature, makes it often suck because you have to work with a bunch of anonymous assholes that only care about K/D.
your concerns about rush, map size, and destruction are well noted - let's hope they fixed them because the flaws were SO OBVIOUS.
>>>> *MAP DESIGN THAT SUPPORTS MULTIPLE MODES* <<<<
-
-
-
-
-
-
I just want to go back to BF games that are less about getting points for upgrades and more about just having fun playing. I like BF1 at first and I played BF2 for a while too, but both just felt so serious and it's all about grinding out points so you can upgrade and I hate that gameplay loop. That's why I don't play COD either.
-
All over my face. I’m going to fuck that tornado.
-
-
-
-
You picked a great year to do it.
-
What do you have? BF V runs really well on 2019-2020 hardware already and I doubt they're going to make this that much more resource-intensive.
-
-
There is apparently some kind of live stream happening ahead of the reveal in about 40 minutes from now
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HP3wxNFnNbA-
Probably a countdown to another countdown :p
-
lol that's exactly what it is, a one-hour countodwn.
-
-
I'm confused - woke up at (now) for the 7am reveal. Now I have two windows for two reveals, one at 7, one at 8.
-
-
-
-
That made me think of the shovel from Mythic Quest.
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
"no classes in BF2042, just "specialists"
https://battlefieldforum.co/t/leaked-battlefield-6-battlefield-2042-images/2024/10
Noooooooooooooo-
I fear there is no dynamite in the future.
-
-
Hopefully it just means each player can select special equipment like the paddles, or a C4, etc.
-
That would be neat. I'd guess it's more the named champion style character with 1-2 unique abilities / weapon / tools in their kit that seems popular in various genres post-dota.
Then they can add and sell more specialists down the road. Though they could still add new items if it's a custom class thing like you hope.
-
-
-
There better be a medical specialist.
-
There is, they can shoot healing darts at you a la TF2 apparently.
-
-
-
-
Now that I have a modern rig, feel free to bit me up if you wanna play some!
-
Congrats and good luck!
-
After watching the trailer I wanna UNF this again :)
-
-
-
PS5 is about equivalent to a 1080 Ti or 2070. So you'll just have to play at lower than console settings. Drop resolution or drop settings.
-
-
Sigh. Kick start my heart.
-
INTO MY VEINS!!!
-
While I can appreciate the insane production values, these cinematic trailers do absolutely nothing for me anymore.
-
-
Goofy is where the game needed to get back to... the dude jumping out of the plane and rocket launching another jet and then landing back in his own jet is so fucking Battlefield and what this series desperately needed to get back to. Hence the phrase "A Battlefield moment"
-
Yep loop zook dates back to 1942.
-
-
Yey another cinematics trailer that serves nothing
-
From reddit:
A person on the battlefield leaks subreddit predicted everything:
7 maps
October Launch
BF2042 name
no SP
Wing Suits
Battlepasses
and then he said that the old 4 classes are gone and heros are introduced, one with a grapple etc.
The new leaks from origin confirm this is true as it mentions "specialists"
He mentioned that there is one main ability and one side ability, and the new origin leak mentions one "Speciality" and one "Trait" and that the loadout is "fully customisable" confirming his leak that any gun can be used on any specialist, removing the need for the core 4 classes .
https://www.reddit.com/r/Battlefield/comments/nvvapc/the_leak_about_battlefield_2021_ditching_the/-
So fucking glad they nixed the SP. Total waste of resources.
-
[deleted]
-
I'll happily take quality over quantity.
-
-
oh my god show me on the doll where BFV touched you, you've clearly suffered some severe trauma over the game and are suffering from PTSD.
-
Like, this is not BFV... your whole crux of everything is "Yeah but look at BFV" I HOPE THEY LEARNED SOMETING :/
-
-
It was a misstep and an incomplete game but I'm giving DICE the benefit of the doubt here that they took the criticism from BFV to heart and they're pouring a lot of resources into this new game where as BFV seemed more like a side project of theirs or it never seemed to have their full attention.
-
Yeah. I personally believe anyone who played BFV longer than the first month, or at least paid some attention to their post launch support, should at least be a little concerned or wary of what DICE does next with the series. I've been on board with all of them from the start, but this one I'll be on the outside, unless the playable open beta shows it to be something truly stellar.
I've been wanting them to strip it down and get back to some basics for a while, even if that means a return to Bad Company (which I wasn't a fan of, but was a huge hit and where the series really took off for consoles), but it sounds like they're going in the complete opposite direction with this one and blowing it out even more, and I just don't have any confidence they'll be able to pull it off after BFV. Doesn't mean I don't want them to succeed, already bummed since these brief details coming out right now makes it seem like they're biting off more than they can chew once again. It makes me wince, but I know most people will still give them the benefit of the doubt. I just can't do that anymore.-
I pre-ordered the BFV extra edition (OOF) and played it nightly with my group as usual, same with the other titles, but we gave up when they ended support. I've played it a total of two nights since then with a couple group members. I've played Hardline way more in the last year than any BFV and had more fun.
BFV was crap at release and a totally dropped ball.
I won't be pre-ordering any more Battlefield titles for a while at least.
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
And I don't disagree, the maps in BFV were awful.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I love the battlefield single player campaigns. Amazing engine showcase.
-
-
Is it going to be Free to play I wonder.
-
-
Dev did an interview with Eurogamer, said they have no plans for one.
Maybe they learned their lesson?-
-
Oh yeah, they had way more lessons to learn than just "don't do BR".
The studio basically fell apart in the years around the launch of BF5, with major producers and artists quitting. Questions is whether they were able to stitch it back together
-
-
-
-
-
-
Haha amazing, love that they included this
https://youtu.be/FOaGhE_sejI-
That and launching the ATV into the chopper. All I did was C4/ATV tanks in BF4, man they were always so upset about it.
-
-
-
-
More detail on the site https://www.ea.com/games/battlefield/battlefield-2042/game-overview
Places are putting up previews too.-
Thanks. Off to a rough start for me, haha.
Got seven maps confirmed for three different modes at least already, Conquest, Breakthrough, and Hazard Zone (hopefully not another BR mode). Plus a potential 4th, maybe a 5th if the rumored Rush does return.
On top of that, there's the caveat that *Xbox One and PlayStation®4 supports 64 players. 128 players and massive-scale maps are available on Xbox Series X|S, PC, and PlayStation®5.
So they're also going to be trying to accommodate 64 and 128 players on the same maps with the same game modes in different versions of the games. Yikes. I wonder if that means the XSX/PS5/PC versions will include both 64 and 128 variants for servers as well? Already sounds like they doing way too much with this one either way, even ignoring the specialists and map and weather gimmicks.
-
-
yeah gameplay info will be critical. round start, the player hits TAB key, hits map key, shows us WTF we're gonna be looking at for whatever mode it is, then play some.
cautiously optimistic.
I'm wondering, in 128 player, if they maintained the BEHEMOTH event if one side is getting stomped on..........
-
-
-
-
-
Players can call in light vehicle drops duh
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
Watch this video for details: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VwHkPiAXoE
-
-
This will be my next FPS purchase.
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
You just think it did
-
Really, what's this then
https://youtu.be/8rHPxgOf9nc-
I don't see anything
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
Yes it did
https://youtu.be/8rHPxgOf9nc-
[deleted]
-
-
[deleted]
-
Heheh, I love how some folks just do not pick up on this. ;)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
That is a lie
-
BF1 had one too. Pretty good bite sized missions.
-
-
yo, srsly. that's the first BF game i bought, just to play the campaign. it was great!
-
-
-
https://youtu.be/yAruCvT7P7Y
Still looks good!
-
-
-
-
They're...fine...but I won't miss them.
I mean they were perfectly competent campaigns but not the reason anyone buys or plays the games.
Might as well divert those resources. I'd imagine a polished SP campaign takes a lot of hours and time to craft. -
[deleted]
-
-
-
why would it? they need to stick the landing of MP. tack on a small SP campaign via a free patch later, crowd would go wild.
multiplayer is everything. CoD nailed the last few campaigns but they are just cruising. battlefield however is in disarray and they know it, the MP being reborn is CRUCIAL. ignore SP completely or add it in later.
-
CoD has a campaign and battle royale now, I'm just wondering how this competes
https://twitter.com/eurogamer/status/1402644458169061378?s=19-
if they include SP at launch it won't compete. CoD knocked BOTH elements completely out of the park this last cycle. Battlefield had some disposable shit in BF1 where you help get a tank through the fucking mud and yeah that's all neat history lesson stuff. It means the MP didn't get the attention it should have.
To be relevant, Battlefield needs a completely breathtaking MP experience. SP can be bonus $19.99 optional DLC later. A LOT later.-
-
I don't understand how that translates to "risky" ??? and "more content" via SP isn't how to launch this game, and they know it.
the MP must be absolutely breathtakingly brilliant. doing anything BUT that... that's risky. it all comes down to map design and game flow across the modes. the CoD team absolutely fucking CRUSHED it in all possible MP respects. their campaign was also quite spectacular as it usually is. lots of gravitas and engaging combat.
pushing tanks in the mud is not engaging combat.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
At least in Planetside the objective was king and just killwhoring did you no favours. Tying XP to your enemies actions on the battlefield was genius, and made killfarming at spawn points utterly useless points wise. Killing people doing real damage to your team? Mega points.
Battlefield has never bothered to consider the points/kills rewards system, so it's just full of selfish idjits.-
Battlefield scoring became objective based, just like your'e saying, at the end of 4, and remained in 1 and 5.
But the problem was most people don't care about score, just k/d. So really, DICE needs to go nuclear and just make it impossible to see your k/d. Just don't record the stat. It will piss a lot of people off, but then they're be forced to play the fucking objective to find out if they're worth a shit.-
4 gives you a bonus if you’re killing people in the vicinity of an objective, but it’s pathetically small and doesn’t discourage people from just sitting somewhere with a sniper rifle for the entire map.
Only played the betas of V/1 and they never had anything better. Hell, 1 even gave you bonus points for sniping other snipers as a sniper, which is going the entirely wrong way :(-
I played the shit out of 1, so I know. I was all about the PTFO, and I was always in top 5, with pretty mediocre k/d.
If you're a sniper, shooting another sniper is good, so you should get rewarded. The problem is when snipers ignore other snipers and just shoot the easy targets that are closer.
Either way, the countersnipe bonus was nowhere close enough to keep you in the running with people grabbing objectives.
-
-
-
-
Now we wait to see if the GamePass/Ea Play day 1 rumors are real. The player base would be gigantic is they did that, which they will need for 128 player games.
-
-
Yeah, you're right. It really sucks in Warzone with the controller assist.
-
-
I think you misspelled Xbox.
Or was scanning over a building and having your crosshairs hang up on concealed enemies an expected perk of owning an Xbox?-
I still think the extra precision of a KB+M much offsets the aim assist for controller players. There's a reason all of the top Warzone/CoD:MP players are playing on PC with KB+M. The aim assist isn't as much of an advantage as you're making it out to be.
But on the other hand, real cheating is exclusive to PC players, so I can see the annoyance for console players being matched with PC players who may be cheating.
That being said, I'm a PC player and I still choose to play cross-platform when playing CoD. I don't think the solution to cheating is to just eliminate cross-platform play, the solution is better anti-cheat measures. But this is always going to be an issue with FTP games where it's easy to make a new account as soon as you're banned. Same issue that games like Dota 2 face. It'd be nice if they could come up with some sort of hardware signature based GUID they could use to perma-ban cheaters, but I'm sure that can be worked around too.
-
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
Jeff Grubb mentioned it in the Nextlander Discord. So take with a grain of salt.
-
[deleted]
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
It wouldn't be free. MS would have to back up the money truck. But it would be win win for EA. You get a huge player base from Day 1 and a huge amount of money from MS and probably increase the perceived value of EA Play.
-
-
-
-
I can only hope.
-
-
-
This is the dark timeline of Deus Ex HR.
-
-
-
-
-
I just noticed ha
-
-
Interesting choice to go with Motley Crue seeing as how they announced a reunion tour in January 2020 and the planet unleashed a plague to prevent it.
Let's see how Vince Neil sounds these days
Vince Neil's First Gig Since the Pandemic Did Not Go Well
https://loudwire.com/vince-neil-live-2021-walks-off-stage/
Oh.-
Here's Dr. Feelgood - shit sounds terrible.
https://youtu.be/VKBnS12X5HA
-
-
da fuq?
-
[deleted]
-
What's the point of a Battlepass if you still have to level up to get the items? It just gives you a pool of things you can acquire?
-
[deleted]
-
Weird. Correct me if I'm wrong as it's been awhile but in BF4 you just got them for XP and it gave you the items, shit like scopes and attachments. Was pretty cool actually.
-
-
-
-
It sounds like everyone can mix and match class stuff rather than being limited to what each class had. So you can equip a sniper rifle and a medic kit. Attachments also are not limited to each weapon, it can be put on each weapon you equip. Specialists classes seem like super powered version of the classes.
-
[deleted]
-
[deleted]
-
-
I'm still trying to understand, does everyone playing get to pick a "specialist" or is it like Battlefront where it's just a few people per server? Or like Rainbow where everyone in you squad chooses one specialist each?
-
[deleted]
-
-
I don't know what I was expecting from this reveal but it certainly wasn't a 5-minute cinematic for a game with little-to-no story and is a big multiplayer action game.
The gameplay reveal is what I need to see.
I'd love to see more games, particularly this kind, to incorporate more randomess to the level design - like L4D2. It doesn't need to be big like a tornado, just subtle variations in the map paths/structures. That could go a long way in increasing the replay-ability. -
Jack Frags speculates that the Hazard Zone game mode might be like Tarkov or Hunt Showdown. It certainly matches the description on the official site, especially as we know it's not a BR.
"Squad up and drop down into the Hazard Zone – an all-new, high-stakes multiplayer experience. Stay tuned for more information coming later in the year."
-
What does that mean? I never played the games you mentioned.
-
-
Jack Frags video - tons of info
https://youtu.be/YN1wwnN0CF0
-
-
I've not played Tarkov but I think it's the same.
In Hunt you spawn on a huge map with your squad several other squads randomly spread all over. You have a number of objectives to complete on the map and earn money or whatever for doing them. Once the objectives have been completed you have to extract with the reward via several zones on the map. Other teams that didn't complete the objectives will hunt the team trying to extract with the reward and if they kill them, will then try and extract the reward for themselves.
-
-
-
All the things you missed in the reveal
https://youtu.be/fimQ1F9YXXE -
-
There's no reason it would, it'll probably be a 1660 or something for "good" but obviously just a guess. BF has always run pretty well.
-
-
-
The question as always is resolution. If you're trying to render at native 1440p with no reduction in renderscale or especially on 4k, that's where you'll need some beef.
A GTX 1080 should be fine for 1440p even if it means adjusting renderscale (and with a 1070 with more aggressive adjustments) but if we're talking 4k then that's where a powerful GPU really becomes needed even with settings dropped.
Ray-tracing will need a newer card for sure, but in terms of baseline performance with good framerate it should support a pretty wide range of hardware going back to 2016. -
The PC version will the PS5/XSX version though. Last gen consoles will be 64 player max
-
Oh interesting. Someone who knows about this stuff should be able to jump in but wouldn't that have more of an impact on minimum CPU spec more than min spec for GPU?
Makes sense that those little Jaguar cores won't be able to handle it but those CPUs were slow even by 2013 standards. A slightly elevated GPU spec makes sense but I'm still going to assume that the 1060 will fall within that range.-
Yeah, you can always drop that resolution scale so you're running 720p internal or something.
-
-
-
-
I'm sure there will be plenty of video settings to dial it down as well as them being aware of current hardware situations and trends.
-
The top 40% of the GPUs in the Steam hardware survey is in the 1060/1050 Ti/2060 family of cards. Farther down the list is more cards in that performance range.
Cards in the GTX 1080 and faster range are much much smaller. It is interesting to note though how the uptake on the RTX 3000 series has been so fast compared to the RTX 2000 series. Even with miners taking up so much supply its still super popular (the 3070 has already overtaken the 1080 Ti and 2060 Super, etc)
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
That's about the Series S has, so that sounds right.
-
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
-
Peggle 2
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
