Jump to navigation
Sponsored by Alienware tracer
Advertisement

Battlefield 2142 Review

PC Review by Graham Swann

20 October, 2006

Battlefield 2142 is a game from the future, although perhaps not in the way you imagine.

Built around the trusty chassis of Battlefield 2, its relationship with that game is similar to the one Battlefield: Vietnam shared with Battlefield 1942 - it puts a different slant on the action and so plays quite differently, even though it's fundamentally cut from the same cloth. The phrase "glorified mod" has been uttered in certain cynical quarters. It is, basically, Battlefield 2... but in the future.

Its generic setting is probably one of its weaknesses. Multiplayer games like Halo 2 - founded on a coherent single-player experience - have a sense of world. Here, it's just a mass of semi-science-fiction elements joined together. The idea that this is actually over a hundred years in the future never really comes across. On the one hand we have ultra-science like the Titans, floating fortresses that hover over the battlefields, which may as well be moonlighting in-between Star Trek shoots. On the other, a lot of very normal-looking projectile weapons. You can't quite put the two together, never mind the assortment of robot-walkers (ED-209's generally lovely big brother), little buggies and hover-tanks.

In play though, you forgive it, if only because all the vehicles control in as lovely a fashion as ever.

In terms of what actually matters, and despite the enormous floating Titans, the importance of air power has been downplayed since last time out. Yes, there are transports and gunships, but they don't appear to dominate anywhere near as much. The conquest game (conquer areas and hold them) remains from BF2. There's also a new mode centred on destroying the opposing team's Titan. In this mode, you battle to control missile-launch positions, which fire projectiles at the enemy every so often for as long as you hold them. Once the enemy shield is down, you can either maintain the barrage or - for a quick kill - actually board the aerial leviathan and fight your way to its reactor. The later tactic is highly reminiscent of some of the best bits of the interior action in PlanetSide, moving between cover points trying to take out control panels.

'Battlefield 2142' Screenshot walkers

Seriously, with Walkers like that, it was never going to get less than a 7/10.

The new classes have been streamlined. And that really is streamlined. Classes have been merged. The Recon character is a mixture of Sniper and Special Forces trooper, for all your sneaky needs. The Engineer takes both anti-vehicle and vehicle-protection roles. The Support class has a mass of suitable high-tech tricks, most useful in - as the name suggests - helping out other people, although a personal force field's clearly a boon. Finally, the Assault class merges the infantry powerhouses with the Medic's troop-support roles. But despite each of the classes' swollen responsibilities, they're still easy to get the hang of, because most of their toys need to be unlocked first.

There's always a feeling with a multiplayer-centric game that you can only get a sense of how it's going to turn out after giving the community a couple of months to chew the game thoughtfully in its mouth. That feeling's especially strong with Battlefield 2142 due to a couple of its more controversial innovations. And it's these which are the true future settings.

The first is game-related: the massively increased reliance on unlockables.

Battlefield 2 introduced the idea of a player gaining in rank, and so gaining more equipment. This was successful because while it was useful to have the greater choice of weapons gained by extended play, not having them didn't alienate newcomers too much. It's different here. The four classes each have masses of upgrades. In fact, some of the abilities you'd consider intrinsic to earlier classes must be purchased to begin with. For example, while the assault class is able to perform basic healing duties, resurrecting the recently dead like the Medic used to do requires an upgrade. Since there are so many more unlockables available, you move through ranks quicker than you did in Battlefield 2, but it does start you off with a relatively limited array of assets.

'Battlefield 2142' Screenshot zebraskin

Zebraskin armour is a popular choice for club-going retro-fashionable soldiers.

How is this going to play out? We just don't know. To be honest, I think this is an abominable one. From my perspective, it's a case of either starting playing now or not playing at all, because if you arrive later when there are far more experienced people playing... well, it's going to be disheartening. It's bad enough in a multiplayer shooter when you find yourself being outplayed. While cheating in shooters is common enough, accusations of cheating by disgruntled players are far more common. Introducing a mechanic where someone else is just better in absolute terms seems like a betrayal of the genre, which is based around competition of skill not persistence. Just because World of Warcraft has seven million people playing it doesn't mean that every game should become World of Warcraft.

Or I may just be getting old.

That said, there are advantages to this approach. As mentioned earlier, just dumping the full array of abilities on someone would actually be confusing, but this way the game slowly opens up to you, with each of these abilities being yearned for and then experimented with. Equally, you get to personalise according to your play style. (Although, that's kind of based on the assumption that you don't want to swap to a tactically more suitable class at any point. Sorry - that's back to being mean to it again.)

The second change is the in-game advertising. We've seen this forever, of course, but there's something about it being in a fantastical setting rather than a real-world one which grates slightly. There's been a "Spy-Ware" furore around the game, which appears to be over-reacting (the idea that they'll be examining cookies has been denied by EA). That said, there are going to be lots of adverts across the level. At the time of writing, there are only placeholders where the adverts will be. If they're smart, they'll do some clever faux-futuristic adverts for whoever coughs up the money, and make it fit into the game's world. But "smart" and "advertising" don't often go together. It'll be worth paying attention when the real adverts start arriving, because it could provide a fatal blow to BF2142's already not-entirely-solid atmosphere.

'Battlefield 2142' Screenshot science

It stays up in the air by very special science.

There are a few other problems. Battlefield 2's performance has always been questionable, but there's a distinct extra hit when playing the Titan games. EA only officially supports Titan games up to 48 players - rather than the normal 64 maximum - and I found performance to be lacking even on 48, especially if you get involved in a Titan Defence.

It's easy to be downbeat with BF2142, which makes it worth reiterating that it's built around the core of one of the genuine great games. In fact, at its best, BF2142 is entirely on par with it, with some uniquely brilliant moments of its own: being propelled through the sky in a drop-pod, the warzone spread out before you like a bloody tapestry; stalking between buildings in the turret of a walker, scanning for targets; or even, on foot, following one of these mechanical beasts, and - for a moment - actually feeling like you're in some strange war in the future. But, when you come down from a battle, you find yourself with more questions and nagging doubt than lasting elation.

Battlefield 2142 may be a glimpse of the future of games. I'm just not sure that I like it.

7/10

Read our Scoring Policy

Advertisement

Are you excited about Battlefield 2142 on PC?
View Eurogamer readers most anticipated games

Thanks!

Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!

Comments: 1-50 of 103 in total | next 50 »

Poster
Comment Low-scoring comments hidden. Log in to see them!
ave
20/10/06 @ 11:09
#1
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Good review, but i think you're a little generous with it's faults :)

meh, forgot an "a"
Edited 1 times, most recently on 20/10/06 @ 12:13
pjmaybe
20/10/06 @ 11:17
#2
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
"There's been a "Spy-Ware" furore around the game, which appears to be over-reacting"

This'll be the phrase tattooed on the arse of the games industry when its bloated corpse is found floating out at sea, I think.

Peej
Schiraman
20/10/06 @ 11:18
#3
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
After listing all those flaws, giving it a 7 seems rather generous.
BravoGolf
20/10/06 @ 11:19
#4
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
From reading the review I would deem 7 to be an accurate representation of the game. That is all.
sir_tripod
20/10/06 @ 11:22
#5
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I refuse to play a game where you have to download a 17Mb patch before it's even released. Maybe EA should acquire a quality control department?
skillian
20/10/06 @ 11:25
#6
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Is there a reason why screenshots on EG are always from the press pack, rather than the reviewer just pressing the print screen button? Some kind of copyright issue?

It would have been nice to see an example of the in-game advertising. Or even a shot from a first person perspective, seeing as how, you know, that's what the game will actually look like 99% of the time?
Edited 1 times, most recently on 20/10/06 @ 12:26
Schiraman
20/10/06 @ 11:30
#7
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
@BravoGolf

Think you were reading a different review to me then - what I summarised from the review was 'basically a mod for Battlefield 2 which adds in-game advertising and poorly-realised sci-fi stylings'. 7 if it was an expansion pack, sure. Perhaps a 5 or 6 for a full-price game.
Xerx3s
20/10/06 @ 11:31
#8
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Maybe EA should acquire a quality control department?

ROFL! Best joke of the day! If they have had such a thing, they wouldn't be able to release anything anymore.
rauper [staff]
20/10/06 @ 11:32
#9
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
We've got all the kit in place so we'll start doing our own screenshots and videos very soon.
space ace
20/10/06 @ 11:34
#10
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
screenshots on EG are always from the press pack

in the half-life 2 review they even showed a scene that isn't in the game at all! seriously, wtf
skillian
20/10/06 @ 11:37
#11
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
We've got all the kit in place so we'll start doing our own screenshots and videos very soon.

Great news :)
Totoriko
20/10/06 @ 11:39
#12
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I had to re-install BF2 last night and I was shocked to see that the latest patch is 543Mb! God knows how big patches for BF2142 will be.
absolutezero
20/10/06 @ 11:50
#13
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I just spent an hour in a titan match, our Titant was down the core with some energy left, theres had one console and the core with no energy left. That victory was both well deserved and damn fun.

When Battlefield gets it right it blocks out all the menial little flaws and becomes sheer fun distiled.

Advertising and recording of personal data is'nt something new, actual product placement was used in Splinter Cell, with no savings passed onto the end user. Valve constantly monitor the users of Steam to get customer feedback and information on the way we play. What different here is that the information collected is going towards small ads in the game world.

All its done is given people that dislike the game more ammo and the actual players mild irritation.

Anyone remember the Japanese Pepsi game?

Its an infringement, the games industry is ending EA IS TEH SUCK!!111

Please, EA =/= Games Industry. Have any of you stopped visiting Eurogamer because of the intrusive ads? I don't think so, sure you can block them but the massive white gaps are still there. Its still trying to sell you stuff.

About the patch, DICE only saw the flaw was there after the discs had gone to print, what would you rather have, a broken game at launch or a broken game thats been fixed at launch?

Sorry forgot to add that the in-game advertisements are'nt even up yet, in my time played since yesterday I've seen around 3, and even then it was only a glimpse. Its a bloody FPS a fast-paced one at that, you don't have time to stand a gawp.

If you're not buying BF 2142 because of what EA does and what its doing then go ahead and take back your copy of Company of Heroes and Dawn of War (I hope you have'nt pre-ordered Warhammer Age of Reckoning) because THQ do just as much damage to originality and innovation with the endless stream of SpongeBob Square Pants games.
Edited 2 times, most recently on 20/10/06 @ 12:56
paketep
20/10/06 @ 11:55
#14
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
EA doesn't have room for a QC department. The building is already full, 3 floors with the Counting Money Department, 2 with the Fucking the Customer department, and the other one with the specialized Release a Patch on Release Day department.

And BTW, I think the ads and anything that goes with them (controlling how long the player looks at them) is over the line and totally unjustifiable, specially if they keep selling the mod (ooooops, sorry, I meant game) at full price.
paketep
20/10/06 @ 11:56
#15
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
@absolutezero

I'd rather have a perfectly working game at launch, thank you
absolutezero
20/10/06 @ 11:57
#16
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
EA did'nt make this game.

Sure they put the pressure on DICE to get it out before Quake Wars, but DICE games have always been buggy as hell. DICE do they're own quality control aswell, like the closed and open BETA tests.
Zawath
20/10/06 @ 11:57
#17
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Actually Battlefield 2142 is more like an RPG than a straight FPS. You levelup your guy just like in every other RPG and get more powerful. It might be frustrating but it's also very addicting.
Clive Dunn
20/10/06 @ 11:58
#18
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
God, EA bashing is just getting intolerably boring. Buy the game, or don't, it's your choice. It seems pretty pathetic to just harp on about EA all day.
skillian
20/10/06 @ 11:58
#19
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
The advertising in Splinter Cell was a very small moment in an FMV scene - even then, it was it totally ruined the atmosphere to see Fisher munching a Wrigley's Airwave.

Eurogamer is free - people understand the need for advertising. It's also just a website, where immersion is much less important.

Regarding the patch, sure it's better to include it if the game is broken, but the point is it shouldn't be broken in the first place.
absolutezero
20/10/06 @ 12:03
#20
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Unforseen problem, these things happen and with DICE its pretty much to be expected, I actually laughed when I first saw it. Thing is, did you really expect them to recall all the printed up copies of the game just because of a flaw they could fix with an internet released patch?

Company of Heroes has been patched already its hardly been out, don't see anyone complaining about that.

Ok fine I give in

*jumps on bandwagon*

booo hiss EA down with this sort of thing!!
Clive Dunn
20/10/06 @ 12:10
#21
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Company of Heroes has the most fucked up lobby system ever, you spend more time in the lobby disconnecting than actually playing it. Lets all moan about THQ.
Darkedge
20/10/06 @ 12:14
#22
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Nobody mentioned the EA advice to remove a windows kernel patch yet?

Hmm no.. strange
Darth_Flibble
20/10/06 @ 12:20
#23
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
People defending EA is getting as sad as the people "bashing them"

1st: Eurogamer is a free service, they have to get money from somewhere. With this Game you have paid for it and then you get crappy spware to fund EA, probably going to the high up to fund the devouring of baby souls (Sorry couldn't resist a dig at the high up management) If the game was free then people would a have a leg to stand on about the ads in game

ave
20/10/06 @ 12:20
#24
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Because its DICE it makes it ok, and because they didnt catch it before they made the discs its ok?


Read what you're writing dude.
jack_klugman
20/10/06 @ 12:45
#25
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
If you have any level of persistent statistic tracking in your game you're going to need a reunable revenue source in order to finance the servers. Once game sales on BF2142 diminish it'll be up to the advertising to ensure you can still achieve new ranks and obtain weapon unlocks. It makes perfect sense to me.

I'd rather have a perfectly working game at launch, thank you

Tough. This is the real world.
DaM
20/10/06 @ 12:46
#26
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Ah, so that's why one of my clients was desperate for his official Battlefield 2142 lanyards today! He can wait till Monday.
Errol
20/10/06 @ 12:48
#27
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Completely misjudged review. This is easily an 85-90% game.
Errol
20/10/06 @ 12:53
#28
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Have you even played this online ? Any review that fails to mention the sheer genius of levels like Tunis, Gibraltar and Berlin (easily better than anything BF2 could manage and some of the best levels in any multiplayer game ever) is a bit odd.

Dice have got the level design, art design and player/weapon handling absolutely spot -on. A definite improvement over BF2.
Whitey McCool
20/10/06 @ 12:59
#29
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I agree with this review 8 billion percent. The whole persistence over skill thing - if you don't start playing straight away (and playing quite a lot at that) then you're going to be miles behind. I never thought I'd say it but its almost like EA has neglected us casuals in favour of keeping the hardcore happy with billions of unlocks.

Its a huge disincentive to a casual purchase. Add that to the fact that in about 2 months there will inevitably be an expansion released extending the gap even further and you've got yourself a perfect recipe for destroying any chance of building a rich and varied community.
Turrican
20/10/06 @ 13:05
#30
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Lowering the price of the game a few pounds would have gone some way towards justifying the advertising in the game. But I think the review here touches the main point, if the game is good enough then I don't care about the advertising, its only if it is completely out of place (see Splinter Cell Airwaves placement) then it is a mistake.

Edit - in fact looking at Play/Gameplay its actually priced a few pounds more than other games, so go figure!
Edited 1 times, most recently on 20/10/06 @ 14:09
absolutezero
20/10/06 @ 13:17
#31
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
@Whitey

Played Counter Strike recently? Get raped alot? Yeah its next to impossible to get a half way decent start in there either, but if you stick at it you get better, only this time along with skill you get little presents aswell.

@ ave

No its not ok and I never said it was, because its DICE I expected problems, and alot of them at that. 2142 is pretty stable compared to the mess of previous games upon release. What I took offence from was people blaming the patch on EA like its there fault. Its not, DICE could have spent another 3 months working on 2142 and most likely the samething could have happened. They just suck at QC.
urban
20/10/06 @ 13:28
#32
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
my view on the ingame advertising is, its not spyware, but its not right either, i fork out bog standards amount of money for a glamour mod, i dont want to STILL be giving them money through my own eyes, advertising in games should only be allowed if its making it cheaper for the consumer, bottomline, stop being GREEDY EA YOU OWN THE GAMES WORLD ALREADY!.
jack_klugman
20/10/06 @ 13:32
#33
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
If the game is going to constantly bleed EA money through server maintainance costs then its only right that it should recoup these losses with minimal impact to the consumer. Advertising meets this need.
Artemus
20/10/06 @ 13:46
#34
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
minimal impact to the consumer

You mean apart from the immersion breaking out-of-place billboards around every corner.
Turrican
20/10/06 @ 13:51
#35
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Official forums are awash with people who cannot level up. Not a good start for the game, especially given previous launches. I think I will definitely wait and see with this one.
jack_klugman
20/10/06 @ 13:52
#36
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
You mean apart from the immersion breaking out-of-place billboards around every corner.

Infinitely preferable to a monthly fee by my estimation.
skillian
20/10/06 @ 14:01
#37
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Infinitely preferable to a kick in the teeth too. Doesn't make either right.
Errol
20/10/06 @ 14:03
#38
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Just to put this inexplicably low score into perspective, here are a few other scores from other sites -

Worthplaying - 89%

Gamedaily - 90%

Pc Zone - 86%

Game informer - 85%.
Edited 1 times, most recently on 20/10/06 @ 15:04
BlackSentoki
20/10/06 @ 14:10
#39
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Found this in Gamestop today for £24.99 so gave in and bought it, but now I'm a bit worried that I'll never really be able to play online because I so rarely played BF2 on a ranked server and only ever got one unlock.

Ah well. There's always single player... :S
ave
20/10/06 @ 14:11
#40
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Bleed them dry? They already make lots of money via not letting random people run ranked servers, and charging you to rent one(or licensing them to partners who also charge you to rent them and pay EA).

skillian
20/10/06 @ 14:14
#41
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
@ Errol

The reason we read Eurogamer is because it's not like all the other sites.

For most of those sites 85% is an "average" score.
Clive Dunn
20/10/06 @ 14:15
#42
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
"Played Counter Strike recently? Get raped alot? Yeah its next to impossible to get a half way decent start in there either, but if you stick at it you get better, only this time along with skill you get little presents aswell."

Clearly you've failed to understand the original point. You get beaten in CS because of your lack of skill, not because they have better weapons. In this if you are a casual player, you'll get beaten by both lack of skill and your opponent having better guns. Great !

valli
20/10/06 @ 14:17
#43
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Introducing a mechanic where someone else is just better in absolute terms seems like a betrayal of the genre, which is based around competition of skill not persistence.

Ehmmm, no matter what unlocks you get, good aiming and reflexes (skill!) are still much more important than gadgets. It's part of the design, you make it sound like WoW where a level 2 beginner can't even dent a level 60 grinder. A headshot will kill anyone no matter how many unlocks he has!
Psi
20/10/06 @ 14:18
#44
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
after reading the review etc i may not unwrap it and just take it back to pcworld on the way home...
jack_klugman
20/10/06 @ 14:23
#45
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Ehmmm, no matter what unlocks you get, good aiming and reflexes (skill!) are still much more important than gadgets. A headshot will kill anyone no matter how many unlocks he has!

At its core this argument if flawed when unlocks include items like personal shields and stealth cloaks.

Infinitely preferable to a kick in the teeth too. Doesn't make either right.

EA has every right to pursue a viable business model.

*Edit for spelling.
Edited 1 times, most recently on 20/10/06 @ 15:23
skillian
20/10/06 @ 14:29
#46
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Bah, I've had this so many times on here.

Of course EA can pursue whatever business strategy they feel like - doesn't mean it's a good thing.
PhakeDC
20/10/06 @ 14:36
#47
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
EA defenders sound quite pathetic. I wonder if they're paid.
Artemus
20/10/06 @ 14:36
#48
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
You're deluding yourself if you believe the 'server costs' line. Yes, I'm sure the biggest gaming publisher on the planet are being bled dry here.

The ads are there purely to reap additional profit at the expense of the gamers. On top of that, the game is even more expensive than other new PC games ffs.
stoopidgreg
20/10/06 @ 14:43
#49
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
regarding the whole unlocking weapons and abilities thing: the developers claim the new weapons aren't more powerful, but just offer more choice. it's not designed to give long term players an advantage but just a choice of weapons which are a little more suited to certain targets. i guess the medic thing is a bit unfair - not being able to revive people from the getgo - but other than that i don't think it would make a big difference overall. for e.g. the default heavy machine gun of the assault soldier is well capable of taking out soldiers with just a few bullets.

anyway, i played the demo and i've come to the decision that BF2142 titan mode is just a poor man's tribes - broadside. please, someone remember that game/map and tell me i'm right!
jack_klugman
20/10/06 @ 14:51
#50
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
You're deluding yourself if you believe the 'server costs' line. Yes, I'm sure the biggest gaming publisher on the planet are being bled dry here.

Of course they're not going to be by a single title, but equally that single title by itself has to generate a profit. If it doesn't then the servers get switched off and everybody loses out.

Comments: 1-50 of 103 in total | next 50 »

Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!

Metaboli

X View gallery