Battlefield 2042 is now one of Steam's worst-rated games of all time

midian182

Posts: 7,293   +65
Staff member
Facepalm: Remember when we were all looking forward to GTA: The Trilogy – The Definitive Edition and Battlefield 2042? Those heady days seem far away now; we all know the problems with Rockstar’s game, and the latest Battlefield has become one of the worst-rated titles of all time on Steam.

Forbes spotted Battlefield 2042’s unwelcome addition to the Steam250 Hall of Shame, which lists the worst-rated games on the platform as ranked by users. At the time of writing, DICE’s multiplayer shooter is ninth on the list (it had been eighth), with only around 25% of people deciding it warranted a positive vote.

Battlefield 2042 has more user reviews than any other game in the Steam250 list of failures. Of its near 36,000 reviews, fewer than 10,000 of them are positive, giving it a “Mostly Negative” rating.

Why so much hate? There are a number of reasons: crashes, server issues, poor performance, broken vehicles, wandering bullets, and much more. There are also complaints about the lack of features, such as a single-player campaign, server browser, class-based system, scoreboard, in-game profile, stats page, scalable maps, different game modes, etc.

DICE has already rolled out one patch ahead of time to try and address some of BF2042’s issues, with two more updates set to arrive in the next month or so. Whether they will be enough to placate angry fans remains to be seen.

DICE might take some solace in the fact that Battlefield 2042’s Metascore user rating of 2.3 is still better than the 0.5—the worst in the site’s history—that GTA: The Trilogy has earned. On Steam, meanwhile, BF2042 remains better reviewed than the platform’s number one worst game: the excruciatingly bad eFootball 2022.

Permalink to story.

 

R00sT3R

Posts: 536   +1,517
The BF games have become FAR too complicated for their own good.

From getting into a game to kitting your character out to interminable stats & unlocks, XP & map objectives. its as clear as mud.

128 player battles on huge maps sounds good in theory but it really isn't in practice. It all too quickly just becomes an unfocused, chaotic mess.

I kinda saw where BF was going in BF4, but that retained just enough of the old BF magic to keep me hooked...but since then, nah, the series is now basically dead to me. My view was reinforced when I played BF5, which came free with my old RTX 2080 purchase. I think I played about 10hrs of it and just couldn't take it any more.
 

Burty117

Posts: 4,271   +2,356
They had four development studios involved, DICE in Sweden, with Ripple Effect Studios, EA Gothenburg, and Criterion Games assisting development. No Campaign at all to develop.

They still couldn't produce more than a handful of maps, the smallest weapon choice and none of it is very well balanced at all with only a handful of guns being viable.

It's just a complete joke, What have the devs been doing? It's not like the Frostbite engine is unknown and it's not like they are doing anything new other than scaling the maps and player count up.

EA won some credit from me earlier this year because "It Takes Two" is an absolute Gem of a co-op game, BF2042 just ruined any respect they won back.
 

Jackwoz

Posts: 53   +52
Played the beta and am playing the newly released version. I must say, I agree with the previous comment on the 128 player maps. They just seem too big. Maybe im not used to it but im finding it hard to. They had to do it I suppose as COD did, and if BF didnt do it this would be the COD fans biggest poke.

I too am finding the bugs pretty annoying. Usually I get 1 game in before my GPU crashes to desktop (AMD).

Ive played many hours of all the BF's, and unlike most people enjoyed BF1 & BF5. So far though, im not enjoying the new one as much. Its early days, and im not poo pooing it yet. Il give it a few game updates before my official decision. But I have my fingers crossed that improvements are made....quickly.
 

winjer

Posts: 273   +1,132
The 128 player count is one of the causes of the game's problems.
The maps are too empty, objectives are to spread out.
Infantry is easy pickings for vehicles.
Lag becomes more of a problem. calculating 128 players has a bigger impact on CPU performance.
And all for nothing. 128 players does nothing for the game.
It was probably an idea from the marketing department, to get something flashy on the game description. But with no thought on the consequences for gameplay.
 

Watzupken

Posts: 385   +356
I've got BF5 for free, but I did not even play it for more than 10 mins. The BF series have been around for too long, and in the hands of EA, is unsurprisingly getting worst. The fact that they removed single player campaign, likely to simplify the development, was meant to help them focus on the multiplayer aspect. Yet it seems to have fallen flat. The idea of many players on a giant map sounds good on paper, but when you don't have that many players which I expect the player count to drop very quickly, then you are just running and barely finding any opponents. There are way too many multiplayer shooters in my opinion, and the ability for most to retain most of their players is quite low.
 

dangh

Posts: 329   +465
I'll stay with Hell Let Loose. BF was fine, but it is trying too much to become as popular as fortnite, and forgetting its roots.
 

SirDigby

Posts: 855   +692
TechSpot Elite
That review is damning.
I was a huge fan of Battlefield One, only just played the campaign for Battlefield V and dipped my toe in the multiplayer and its much the same but I've had a load of bugs with Battlefield V constantly crashing it really puts me off.

Battlefield One was a triumph, the War Stories I wasn't a huge fan of but they were impactful and fun, the multiplayer was a great success though, wish the players would come back to it.
 

Hexic

Posts: 1,084   +1,633
TechSpot Elite
I wonder how many AAA games have to join this prestigious list before they actually perform meaningful QA testing prior to launching.

After GTA, Cyberpunk, Diablo Remastered/Warcraft III Remastered… it’s clear that STILL, no one is learning from anyone else’s blunders.
 

Dimitriid

Posts: 1,338   +2,625
That review on the screenshot truly makes it sounds like a Call of Duty game. And not even one of the "good ones" but one of the crap new ones.

If you consider that Battlefield fans would probably hate even the "good" CoD games well, it's not surprising it's all time low.

But that's ok: it's also coming at an all time low availability for competent GPUs anyway: a few more of these massive games bombing this hard and we could actually enter the PC AAA gaming recession I've been calling out for a little while now.
 

Nobina

Posts: 3,418   +3,530
I wonder how many AAA games have to join this prestigious list before they actually perform meaningful QA testing prior to launching.

After GTA, Cyberpunk, Diablo Remastered/Warcraft III Remastered… it’s clear that STILL, no one is learning from anyone else’s blunders.
Preorder culture is at least a big part of the problem. Gamers have been taught like cattle that they are to pay for the game before it's released and then the company behind it has no incentive to make it good.
 

king cleanass

Posts: 33   +49
I’ve preordered every BF game since 2, including BFV and even Hardline. After playing the beta, I skipped this one. It just felt like a Chinese knockoff of a battlefield/call of duty game, something just felt off.

This game was developed as a BR. They tried to stuff it into a battlefield game late in development, and it shows.

The IP is likely dead after this. I’m not even gloating, I’m just disappointed. Battlefield is ****ing dead.
 

QuantumPhysics

Posts: 5,469   +6,266
Battlefield games always have bugs.
I'm getting acclimated to the game. Although I wish HARDCORE mode was there so I didn't have to shoot people like NYPD to kill them, thus-far, I'm having a good time with the game.

#1 No graphic errors on my desktop.
#2 The maps are big and fun to explore.

I personally prefer the Battlefield 3 RUSH mode (specifically Domavand Peak) and Battlefield 4 maps with destructible landmarks.
 

AIC1Drew

Posts: 48   +35
I've never played but it's currently the most active title judging by everyone in my steam friends list. Is it really that bad?
 

king cleanass

Posts: 33   +49
That review on the screenshot truly makes it sounds like a Call of Duty game. And not even one of the "good ones" but one of the crap new ones.

If you consider that Battlefield fans would probably hate even the "good" CoD games well, it's not surprising it's all time low.

But that's ok: it's also coming at an all time low availability for competent GPUs anyway: a few more of these massive games bombing this hard and we could actually enter the PC AAA gaming recession I've been calling out for a little while now.
MW2019’s ground war mode almost did a better job at being a battlefield than battlefield itself. Better even, in terms of infantry combat. No surprise they basically copied the monetization formula for the game, thinking that the MONETIZATION is the important part. Not, yknow, the actual game itself.
 

AMN3S1AC

Posts: 132   +98
Battlefield games always have bugs.
I'm getting acclimated to the game. Although I wish HARDCORE mode was there so I didn't have to shoot people like NYPD to kill them, thus-far, I'm having a good time with the game.

#1 No graphic errors on my desktop.
#2 The maps are big and fun to explore.

I personally prefer the Battlefield 3 RUSH mode (specifically Domavand Peak) and Battlefield 4 maps with destructible landmarks.

The bugs aren't the problem as they can be patched. The problem is the very core of this game is rotten. The maps are badly designed with poor infantry flow and bland soulless graphics. The obnoxious specialists detract from the tone, and the gun plus system, which is implemented well, is the antithesis of Battlefield. They forgot that the "Battlefield moments" were usually created by players, instead of being part of gimmicks like tornados flying through the map.
 

Bl00dyMinded

Posts: 376   +539
Battlefield games always have bugs.
I'm getting acclimated to the game. Although I wish HARDCORE mode was there so I didn't have to shoot people like NYPD to kill them, thus-far, I'm having a good time with the game.

#1 No graphic errors on my desktop.
#2 The maps are big and fun to explore.

I personally prefer the Battlefield 3 RUSH mode (specifically Domavand Peak) and Battlefield 4 maps with destructible landmarks.
I agree I am enjoying the game as well and have had zero crashes on my PC running all on ultra. The only thing I am waiting for is joystick support. Driving that chopper and jet with a mouse is a pain in the but.
 

Gimp65

Posts: 49   +92
The bugs aren't the problem as they can be patched. The problem is the very core of this game is rotten.
+1

They just dont get it anymore, what is going on with them I dont know and I stopped caring. The BF series has been going down hill ever since BF2-BC2..You can do less in the newer ones, they lack atmosphere, they lack mod tools, they lack....in general just lacking compared to how EPIC the series once was. EA is just cancer for gaming, they dont have what it takes...I mean they do, but they have no clue how to make good use of their resources to make great games anymore.
 

king cleanass

Posts: 33   +49
I think you’re all forgetting the primary goal of AAA games like this: to make shareholders money. If you end up having fun, it’s purely incidental.