Battlefield 2142 Review

By Graham Swann Published 20 October, 2006

With Walkers more vicious than our own John.

Version tested: PC

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 the Eurogamer.net scoring policy
Picture of Graham.

About Graham Swann

Read more articles from Graham by visiting the Graham Swann archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (103) Latest comment 5 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • ave #1 5 years ago

    Good review, but i think you're a little generous with it's faults :)

    meh, forgot an "a"
    Edited by 1 at 20/10/06 @ 12:13

  • pjmaybe #2 5 years ago

    "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 #3 5 years ago

    After listing all those flaws, giving it a 7 seems rather generous.

  • BravoGolf #4 5 years ago

    From reading the review I would deem 7 to be an accurate representation of the game. That is all.

  • sir_tripod #5 5 years ago

    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 #6 5 years ago

    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 by 1 at 20/10/06 @ 12:26

  • Schiraman #7 5 years ago

    @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 #8 5 years ago

    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 Verified Managing Director, Eurogamer Network #9 5 years ago

    We've got all the kit in place so we'll start doing our own screenshots and videos very soon.

  • space_ace #10 5 years ago

    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 #11 5 years ago

    We've got all the kit in place so we'll start doing our own screenshots and videos very soon.

    Great news :)

  • Totoriko #12 5 years ago

    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 #13 5 years ago

    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 by 2 at 20/10/06 @ 12:56

  • paketep #14 5 years ago

    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 #15 5 years ago

    @absolutezero

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

  • absolutezero #16 5 years ago

    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 #17 5 years ago

    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 #18 5 years ago

    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 #19 5 years ago

    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 5 years ago

    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 #21 5 years ago

    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 #22 5 years ago

    Nobody mentioned the EA advice to remove a windows kernel patch yet?

    Hmm no.. strange

  • Darth_Flibble #23 5 years ago

    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 #24 5 years ago

    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 #25 5 years ago

    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 #26 5 years ago

    Ah, so that's why one of my clients was desperate for his official Battlefield 2142 lanyards today! He can wait till Monday.

  • Errol #27 5 years ago

    Completely misjudged review. This is easily an 85-90% game.

  • Errol #28 5 years ago

    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.

  • frod. #29 5 years ago

    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 #30 5 years ago

    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 by 1 at 20/10/06 @ 14:09

  • absolutezero #31 5 years ago

    @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 #32 5 years ago

    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 #33 5 years ago

    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 #34 5 years ago

    minimal impact to the consumer

    You mean apart from the immersion breaking out-of-place billboards around every corner.

  • Turrican #35 5 years ago

    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 #36 5 years ago

    You mean apart from the immersion breaking out-of-place billboards around every corner.

    Infinitely preferable to a monthly fee by my estimation.

  • skillian #37 5 years ago

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

  • Errol #38 5 years ago

    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 by 1 at 20/10/06 @ 15:04

  • BlackSentoki #39 5 years ago

    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 #40 5 years ago

    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 #41 5 years ago

    @ 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 #42 5 years ago

    "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 #43 5 years ago

    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 #44 5 years ago

    after reading the review etc i may not unwrap it and just take it back to pcworld on the way home...

  • jack_klugman #45 5 years ago

    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 by 1 at 20/10/06 @ 15:23

  • skillian #46 5 years ago

    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 #47 5 years ago

    EA defenders sound quite pathetic. I wonder if they're paid.

  • Artemus #48 5 years ago

    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 #49 5 years ago

    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 #50 5 years ago

    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.

  • Erinan #51 5 years ago

    I would have given it a 6 as it's just a BF2 mod.

  • Artemus #52 5 years ago

    Do you work for EA Jack, perchance?

  • Aga #53 5 years ago

    Stay clear guys, save your money for the true battefield experience, Armed Assault!

  • jack_klugman #54 5 years ago

    Do you work for EA Jack, perchance?

    Nah. And I loathe their global monopoly on the games publishing world as much as the next man. I can just appreciate the need for an industry whose costs are ballooning out of control, while sales in the PC sector are dwindling, to seek more sustainable business practices and revenue models. I'm not a massive fan of advertising where it compromises the creative focus of a title and am somewhat sceptical it can sit in a sound way with the already slightly convoluted BF2142 future asthetic. But blind EA bashing is tedious and as far as I was aware I was justifying all my comments.

  • skillian #55 5 years ago

    EA have gone further than anyone else and spearheading in-game ads and rip-off downloadable content. This is the last publisher that actually needs the revenue it brings.

    The bashing of EA isn't "blind". If we condone this shit today the whole industry will be in the toilet in 10 years.

  • Artemus #56 5 years ago

    This isn't "blind EA bashing". People have made some very good points.

  • ave #57 5 years ago

    "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."

    Are you ignorant or just stupid?

    Ranked servers EARN THEM MONEY, I wouldnt be surprised if the put global ranking+unlocks+ranked servers in mainly for the economic benefit.

  • jack_klugman #58 5 years ago

    And some decidely flippant ones.

  • suj #59 5 years ago

    What kit do you need to take pics? Just push the screenshot button ? :S

  • WrongShui #60 5 years ago

    Never played BF2, im enjoying this game thoroughly though.

  • Derblington #61 5 years ago

    The unlocked weapons in the game aren't better than the 'free' ones, they just provide you with a different way to play.

  • skillian #62 5 years ago

    That's what it was like in BF2, but I get the impression that in 2142 the unlocks are much closer to upgrades. If you have to unlock the defibs for example, what do you sacrifice for that?

    Haven't played though, so I'm not sure how true that is.

  • Derblington #63 5 years ago

    What do you mean " what do you sacrifice"?

    Some unlocks upgrade things (the NetBat stuff for example), the rest just provide you with equipment that can help you out.

    You also get squad points per game that enable you to unlock some of the unlocks for the duration of the game you're playing. These help a) level the playing field against people who've been playing, and unlocking, for a while and b) let you try out stuff before you commit to unlocking it.

  • Derblington #64 5 years ago

    Actually just read the review and it's not very good at all. There are plenty of things in the game that are completely ommited (such as the afore mention Squad Points that temporarily unlock items so that you don't ever fall behind those who've been playing longer than you, in terms of weaponry and gadgets) that actually rectify the negative points mentioned in the review.

    It's a multiplayer game based around teamwork, moreso than any BF before it. Did the reviewer actually play with people, as a team? If not, then no, you probably won't fair too well and will come away feeling like the game is balanced badly. If you do you'll have a blast.

    There is a "way" to play this game, just like any other. Ignore it and not only will you get destroyed by the opposition but, if you're a reviewer, paid to play and understand the game, you'll also look like a bit of a prat.

  • skillian #65 5 years ago

    ...such as the afore mention Squad Points that temporarily unlock items so that you don't ever fall behind those who've been playing longer than you...

    That sounds like a great idea, and totally allays my fears about the new unlock system. Thanks for the info.

  • afray #66 5 years ago

    Absolutezero:
    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.

    Even if EA didn't own DICE, developers normally have very little choice about release dates. DICE couln't have chosen to stay on it for three more months, your point is pure fantasy!

    And "just sucking at QC" isn't an excuse. That's like saying it's ok for me to club seals because I suck at missing.

  • afray #67 5 years ago

    Some games are buggy. That's a fact of life, but we shouldn't accept it blindly. The responsibility ultimately lies with the producer/external producer who approved a schedule that didn't allow for enough testing. Brooks himself says you should devote half the schedule to testing, where as most games go alpha (the nominal stage of "feature completion" with only months to go until release-to-manufacture. Until those in power realise that buggy games are a product of process and that they have it in their power to changes that process, we'll keep getting inflicted with them.

  • Derblington #68 5 years ago

    Sometimes bugs are missed though, and no matter how much time you put aside for testing you won't find them, especially as bug fixes often break other areas.

  • spiny #69 5 years ago

    Four things made me cancel my pre-order for this:

    -- Realising that the unlocks will make a vast difference to your effectiveness (I don't have hours & hours to play & unlock stuff)
    -- The bugs/exploits (i.e. being able to get inside any wall)
    -- The ads
    -- The initial weapons felt crap

    I reckon 7/10 is generous.

    The good news is BF2 is still good. (City maps anyway...)

  • ave #70 5 years ago

    "It's a multiplayer game based around teamwork, moreso than any BF before it. Did the reviewer actually play with people, as a team? If not, then no, you probably won't fair too well and will come away feeling like the game is balanced badly. If you do you'll have a blast. "
    You ever played on a BF2 server where people played like a team?(including clan servers, where the clanned people generally whore the aircraft).

  • Derblington #71 5 years ago

    "You ever played on a BF2 server where people played like a team?"

    Yes, thanks.

  • jack_klugman #72 5 years ago

    Does BF2142 have vehicle drops?

  • ave #73 5 years ago

    "Yes, thanks."

    Then you're one of the lucky 0.001% :)

    Cant bash the review because you're lucky enough to play with work mates, when on public servers where the vast majority of people will play has next to no teamwork.
    Edited by 1 at 20/10/06 @ 17:49

  • Derblington #74 5 years ago

    "Cant bash the review because you're lucky enough to play with work mates, when on public servers where the vast majority of people will play has next to no teamwork."

    I can and did. The point is the review is supposed to be informative and it's not.

    edit: How do you do italics in the comments thread?
    Edited by 1 at 20/10/06 @ 17:52

  • UncleLou #75 5 years ago

    For a reason entirely inexplicable to me, this costs about 10 EUR more here than any other new PC release.

    How I laughed.

  • krokomkiller #76 5 years ago

    "For a reason entirely inexplicable to me, this costs about 10 EUR more here than any other new PC release."

    Not here (swe)

  • HelloWorld #77 5 years ago

    In game adverts have been around for years. Can't think of any examples, but I'm sure they have.
    I don't see anything wrong with it, as long as it isn't intrusive.

  • Macross #78 5 years ago

    Bought it, played it, enjoyed it.

    Thats enough for me, although I admit that I suck alot and need more practice (dunno why but when Im not in a vehicle I just suck monkey balls).

    PS I actually cancelled my order for this and I as livid about all this ad stuff, then I thought oh what the fck and got it anyway, Im glad I got over it.

  • ave #79 5 years ago

    "The point is the review is supposed to be informative and it's not."

    It is informative, to the vast vast majority of players.

    The fact the reviewer played it like most people will(alone on random servers) takes nothing away from the review.

    ps, its "i" "/i" with triangle brackets ;)

  • Derblington #80 5 years ago

    It is informative, to the vast vast majority of players.

    But it's not. He has negative points about the game that don't actually apply to the game (because there are features present for the very reasons he has the negative points), except that he played it that way. It's like scoring Splinter Cell badly because you play it like Rambo. Just because you play it that way doesn't mean the game is bad.

    The decision to have projectile based weaponry was to lend the game more realism and to present a future that could be. Why that doesn't sit well with the Titan in the eyes of the reviewer is beyond me. Why would lasers have been better? Why does Future = lasers? If it had been all lasers and jetpacks people would be critisizing it for being a generic vision of the future. Again, a negative that's only a negative because the reviewer has no imagination.

    The Ad thing is completely irrelevant for a review, imo. It puts it as a negative because they're there, but when addressing the actual issue surrounding the ads (the information sharing) says that the community are over-reacting. It makes no sense! If it's the actual images that are used (pure speculation at present) that are the problem you can always just pretend that when the ice melted people were too busy trying to survive to change a few posters. Problem solved!

    The whole review reads like an anti-EA rant and doesn't look at what the game actually is to play until the closing paragraph. It's poor. Compare it to the Splinter Cell review on the front page and tell me otherwise.

    ps, its "i" "/i" with triangle brackets ;)

    Thanks :)
    Edited by 2 at 20/10/06 @ 19:14

  • ave #81 5 years ago

    "But it's not. He has negative points about the game that don't actually apply to the game (because there are features present for the very reasons he has the negative points), except that he played it that way. It's like scoring Splinter Cell badly because you play it like Rambo. Just because you play it that way doesn't mean the game is bad."

    Excuse me, but what you said in no way contradicts that the point that he played the game like normal people will, so sayings its a poor review because he didnt play with a premade team doesnt work.

    I never once encountered teamwork in BF2 on public servers, the only time I ever encountered it was a small 4v4 tournament(where BF2 really doesnt shine).

    I dont want to read reviews where people who made the game state how it should be played, I want to read reviews where the person reviewing it plays it like anyone else would.

    As for the Splinter Cell analogy, does DICE provide the team mates to make bf2142 into the awesome team game? Do they ensure that they work cohesively and follow orders? Do they provide ANY features to clans/squads?
    Edited by 1 at 20/10/06 @ 20:02

  • Derblington #82 5 years ago

    There are a number of new team based rewards in the game to try to make people play as a cohesive team. Being in a squad allows you to use squad leader unlocks, access squad unlocks and rank quicker which gets you all the permanent unlocks much more quickly. you can use the NetBat which has a number of useful advantages and you get team points for things like piloting teammates to the Titan.

    Dice have put these in to try and get people to play together to get more from the game. Is this mentioned in the review? No. Why? Because he barely played the game, let alone played it the way it was intended.

    It should have been played with these things in mind in order to a) accurately guage how well the game can be played and b) to inform the public so that it is more likely to be played in that manner so that people can get more from the experience. After, a disclaimer stating that if you intend to ignore the game's design and play it on your own you won't get as much from it because everyone will be able to see you before you see them and kill you faster would have been perfect. And not difficult. Especially from someone who is paid to do that.

    Instead we get 'the game isn't very good because I played it on my own, not for very long and didn't bother to attempt to play it as intended (with other players)'. The review isn't informative at all. It tells you nothing about the game , just that he doesn't like the fact there're no laser guns and he doesn't like that it has in-game ads that no-ones seen yet.

    If people still don't play the game as a team, then fine, Dice failed in their attempt to make it work. The game shouldn't be put down because of that in a review. The review should outline the merits and failings of the game in the eyes of the reviewer, not the failings of the reviewer projected onto the game.

  • ave #83 5 years ago

    If people still don't play the game as a team, then fine, Dice failed in their attempt to make it work. The game shouldn't be put down because of that in a review. The review should outline the merits and failings of the game in the eyes of the reviewer, not the failings of the reviewer projected onto the game.

    The game should be reviewed as is, not as its wished to be.

    While I do agree its not really DICE's fault that almost everyone you meet in any online game is going to be... well ignorant, its not the reviewer or players fault either.

    PS, from what I read you play it on a lan(or at least a group of friends playing together locally vs the internet), in my experience playing even a poor game on LAN makes it miles better than the best online game ;)


    btw, when I said stuff for clans/squads, I meant functionality(both outside and inside the game) rather than methods of trying to make average player #35 a team player.
    Edited by 2 at 20/10/06 @ 20:44

  • Derblington #84 5 years ago

    The game should be reviewed as is, not as its wished to be.

    It's not being reviewed as it is though! Where's the mention of all the stuff I've told you about in the review? It's an online multiplayer game so it isn't being played at the moment! The purpose of the review is to inform the public of the features so that they understand how it's intended to be played and, if it differs, how it does play. This hasn't done that. Infact, it hasn't really told you anything about the game!

    While I do agree its not really DICE's fault that almost everyone you meet in any online game is going to be... well ignorant, its not the reviewer or players fault either.

    In this case it *is* the reviewers fault. He shouldn't be ignorant as it's his damn job to enlighten us! He hasn't played it properly (in both senses) and so has projected the game in a bad/false light. This could result in people either not playing it or assuming it plays as BF2 does, resulting in bad experiences. The whole point of a review is to explain how a games plays - he hasn't. How are you not seeing this?!?

    PS, from what I read you play it on a lan(or at least a group of friends playing together locally vs the internet), in my experience playing even a poor game on LAN makes it miles better than the best online game ;)

    Eh? Who plays it like that?
    Edited by 1 at 20/10/06 @ 20:52

  • ave #85 5 years ago

    But it's an online multiplayer game so it isn't being played at the moment! The purpose of the review is to inform the public of the features so that they understand how it's intended to be played and, if it differs, how it does play. This hasn't done that. Infact, it hasn't really told you anything about the game!

    Actually you can read about its features on the blurb on the back of the box, I read reviews for how it plays and for critique :)

    In this case it *is* the reviewers fault. He shouldn't be ignorant as it's his damn job to enlighten us! He hasn't played it properly (in both senses) and so has projected the game in a bad/false light. This could result in people either not playing it or assuming it plays as BF2 does, resulting in bad experiences. The whole point of a review is to explain how a games plays - he hasn't. How are you not seeing this?!?
    He explained how it played for him, the fact this puts it in a negative light seems to be the point, not that he is lying or misrepresenting it(or how it will play for most people).

    Ever consider that the reason he may not have mentioned the new bonuses for being in a squad is because it didnt make teamplay happen anymore than it did in BF2, thus rendering it effectively unnoteworthy? :)

    The easiest comparison is with Planetside, where squads(and outfits!) formed naturally - that just hasnt happened to me in BF2/2142 beta.

    Eh? Who plays it like that?
    Sorry, confused you with valli :p

  • Derblington #86 5 years ago

    Actually you can read about its features on the blurb on the back of the box, I read reviews for how it plays and for critique :)

    Yes, but the review should highlight how those features work. Reviews should teach you to suck eggs, they have to be written as though you know nothing about the game so that, hopefully, you come away with an informed opinion of teh game that can help you in your decision to purchase it. This one tells you nothing about the game.

    Ever consider that the reason he may not have mentioned the new bonuses for being in a squad is because it didnt make teamplay happen anymore than it did in BF2, thus rendering it effectively unnoteworthy? :)

    Working or not it should have been mentioned as a new feature in the game/franchise. What good is a review that says "I don't like it"? You need to know what's in it, how it works, why it does or doesn't and whether those things can be overlooked or not in terms of enjoyment.

    I've played the game a lot, in many different environments but I'm not talking about the quality of the product, I'm talking about the worthlessness of the article.

  • BadDevotions #87 5 years ago

    with regards to the unlockables, it would be fine if you had servers where you could only play if you were below a certain rank. this would stop uber experienced people wooping newbies and would give newbies a chance to gain experience and the unlockables mentioned.

    otherwise it's a shit idea and like the reviewer said; either play now or don't play at all.

  • Derblington #88 5 years ago

    with regards to the unlockables, it would be fine if you had servers where you could only play if you were below a certain rank. this would stop uber experienced people wooping newbies and would give newbies a chance to gain experience and the unlockables mentioned.

    otherwise it's a shit idea and like the reviewer said; either play now or don't play at all.

    A perfect example of why the review is shite.

    I realise I'm makng a rather large point about this but I honestly expected more from this review considering the amount of coverage about the game up to now and the general quality of the reviews on the site. And I'm in, alone, on a friday night and bored stupid.

  • valli #89 5 years ago

    Bad Devotions, thanks for proving Derbs point (and mine) that the review is bad.

    Again, unlocks are NOT key elements in succeeding well! Besides, a beginner gains around one unlock per hour (and I don't count him improving his aiming skills during that time). A veteran, GOOD BF2 player will have everything unlocked in a matter of days.

    ave, I play more BF2 from home than from work, where I usually play alone. There are lots of servers where teamplay is common, I usually start a squad called "TEAMPLAY!" and start inviting people. Give them orders, kick out the people that ignore them and in a couple of minutes you'll have a working squad. Believe me, they'll stick around when you start supplying/healing them.

    I don't see me playing at work as playing on a LAN: just because me and 4 more clients are on the same local area doesn't mean we get any ping advantage or something like that. Sometimes we even end up on different teams so it's not like we're playing like some clan members do.

  • RedPanda #90 5 years ago

    Post deleted at 14:31:59 28-01-2012

  • GitSomE_UK #91 5 years ago

    It's got guns 'n' mechs... job done... sold!

  • Kraken #92 5 years ago

    To me its really as simple as this. I enjoyed BF2, save for the interface. I was all set to enjoy BF2142 too, until I heard about the in-game advertising. Not to mention reported issues between the patch recently released (might be resolved by now) and XP. I just wish a company as financially succesful as EA could show a little more QC and respect for its customers.

    Unlike some posters here, I do believe that having ads in-game is worth mentioning, especially in a review. I don't mind ads so long as its done in a manner that would feel right. It certainly can add to general game immersion in some cases. Too bad it doesn't seem as though it will here, though we'll only know for sure once they start putting real ads in. The thought of having current day ads around in a future warzone just doesn't feel right. Maybe if they had dropped the price down a little I'd be more forgiving but I don't see any sign of that either.

    Anyway I'll just use the money to buy another game, been meaning to buy the Dark Crusade (Warhammer 40K) expansion for a while now.

  • Spanker #93 5 years ago

    Good review. No way I am buying this after BF2's lack of support. EA had Dice working on 2142 straight after BF2 release. No doubt the bulk of the 2142 team is already working on their next project, and patching for 2142 will be lousy as usual.

  • Derblington #94 5 years ago

    Good review. No way I am buying this after BF2's lack of support. EA had Dice working on 2142 straight after BF2 release. No doubt the bulk of the 2142 team is already working on their next project, and patching for 2142 will be lousy as usual.

    Wow, you have no idea what you're talking about. Thanks for the info.
    Edited by 1 at 21/10/06 @ 18:14

  • Furbs #95 5 years ago

    You're right Derbs. With BF2 the original dev team werent even responsible for the patches were they? Probably explains why the game became a farce.

    Hate to say it mate, but you're coming across like that Lionhead guy who got shitty when the B&W2 review wasnt great. You're on a hiding to nothing.

  • GitSomE_UK #96 5 years ago

    Well I think you are all beating this game up far to much. I went out bought it and I'm now having a lot of fun.

    You don't even notice the adverts it's not as bad as what I thought it would be.

    What would be more considerate is if they actually gave you the option to enable or disable ads as for me this way of advertising is going to be the new spam.

    They do it with websites etc. why should this be any different?

    Anyway, if you like BF2, you'll like this, it's definately the BFV for the BF2 engine.

    Titan mode is great and I can't wait to see what happens with Quake Wars as I think tactical objectives works well.

    I consider myself to be a decent player and I didn't think things were unbalanced. If you are that much of a limp gamer and can't face the challenge then go back to Solitaire.

    As for the review... I'd have given it an 8.5 play it a bit more next time and work at creating a team and understand the subtle changes something special happens then.


    Titan ROCKS!
    Edited by 1 at 21/10/06 @ 20:18

  • Lowrin #97 5 years ago

    This is the most 'off' review I've ever read on eurogamer.

    Seriously: Not happy with the sci-fi setting? Boo-hoo'ing about in-game advertising which (having played the game alot this weekend) I can see everyone simply not noticing? Whinning because you have to go an hour without sitting still doing nothing or teamkilling before you get an unlock?

    There was maybe two lines on the game mechanics and dynamincs. The machine sharpend play experience that you get with a DICE game in a sub-genre they essentialy own. Where's the impartial onservation?

    All I see are tired complaints about things that don't really matter if you actualy sit down and play the game for more than a couple of hours (unlocks, ad's, etc) and gripes that the sci-fi isn't up to the standards of star: wars/gate/trek/search (or whatever Mr Swans franchise of choice is).

    And the performance gripes? What the hell kind of dusty rig are you reviewing on? Update drivers/DX much? :-\

    Glorifed BF2 Mod? Youre meant to be a game journalist.... How many games still have quake three code floating around in them? Quake 3 itself had quake 1 legacy code. Developers don't throw away years of work everytime they move on to a new title, they capitalise on what they already have. If youre not using a MAC or Linux box right now, then why aren't you complaining to microsoft that "OMG! Windows XP is just a Mod for DOS! Rip off!". So a few directories still have "BF2" plastered on them, so far as I can see this is the only factor
    that could be prompting this "glorified mod" response. Dig around your windows directory a bit if you get the time. Might enlighten you to the realities of development (seriously, youre a *proffesional* jounalist? These are basics, you should know this stuff man).

    You have seriously under-rated what is actualy a very tight, slick and enjoyable play experience due to a complete lack of journalistic impartiality.

    Deserves an 8 at least. My dissapointment in the fumbling of the review staff (on this one) knows no bounds.
    Edited by 4 at 23/10/06 @ 09:11

  • dsmx #98 5 years ago

    The thing I hate is that they still haven't fixed all of bf2 problems then they shove another game out the door that is filled with even more bugs even though it had an beta stage. Then they charge full price for what is essentialy a mod of bf2 with in game advertising and don't pass any savings onto the customer. How can you justify charging full price for something that you put minimal effort and money into?

  • Snooz #99 5 years ago

    100th \o/ !!!!1111

  • Snooz #100 5 years ago

    "How can you justify charging full price for something that you put minimal effort and money into? "

    Ask Bill Gates.... but in a serious attempt to answer your question it is way more cost effective to release a product when it's 80% finished than "when it's done". Sadly software probably is one of the areas where bugs are easier til notice..

    I first discovered this sell-at-80%-done mentality when listening to entreprenures from Atmel ( they're in the data chip industry, right?). They ALWAYS push their chips in to the market when they were 80% done, (in some way or a nother, not sure what area). But the point is, those last 20% might cost you valuable time, market oportunities, time allocated for the next generation etc etc that might be worth way more than some returned products and ranting customers.

    If you can cut 20% cost of a product or development time for every generation/version of your products because they're still pretty much usable in about 95% of the time for all customers, why spend more money when you obviously will make more for less effort?

    (Sorry bout some bad english here and there, just trying to make a point of what i believe I've learned from different industries)

  • Nillsens #101 5 years ago

    Just a seven?

    I've been having a blast with this game so far. I don't quite follow some of the criticism. I honestly don't care how the titan manages to stay afloat. If this fits in line with the rest of the sci-fi setting is the least of my worries. The fact that it offers an interesting addition to the old BF formula is what counts in my opinion.
    I also don't find the unlocks to sway the game in favor of those who have been playing longer. In just one day I managed to unlock enough to get a new weapon anyway and I must say that it didn't do much to change my score, it just fitted more in tune with my playing style, making fire and maneuver tactics more viable. I can see how not having the grenades in the beginning can hamper your effectiveness, but even that is hardly game breaking.
    That the game might be a glorified mod is also a bit of a sweeping statement. I find this criticism rather outdated considering loads of people line up for a newer version of an old experience all the time (Devil May Cry 4 anyone?). As a whole I find the game far more balanced than BF2. No more arty that decimates everything in seconds. No more jets and choppers that own absolutely everything. Best of all: no more people going prone the second they spot someone.
    I'm not without gripes either though, indeed the stat-tracking was completely messed up upon release. I didn't rank up for ages and when I did it was suddenly 5 ranks at once. A friend of mine however did not rank up at all until the next day. The stats page also still isn't working properly as far as I know.
    All things aside, I'm loving the game to bits. People can say whatever they want, I'm off to play some Camp Gibraltar with 63 other people who will be just as satisfied as me :D

  • ScottyXTUK #102 5 years ago

    I'm a big fan of the Battlefield series but the one thing I disliked about BF2 was the air dominance. However in BF2142 that dominance has gone and I'm much happier, in fact I love this game. You can actually take a vehicle and if squaded up can make it last a full round sometimes. This was nearly impossible in BF2, I lost count of how many times I spawned, jumped in an APC and would be dead before even setting off sometimes.

    The balance is much better for me in this one, I love the Walkers, the new APCs, the guns, the mines that chase vehicles. Even the maps damn good and have oodles of atmosphere.

    For me and my mates this is the multiplayer game of choice right now and I'll be playing it for a long time to come. A 7 out of 10 seems a little harsh to me, it delivers as an online game and is great fun.

    9 out of 10 for me

  • jankster #103 5 years ago

    its and ok game but you got to hammer itto get any were which i did but when you hammer any game with not many maps it gets boring fast and when you got to pay for add on that should of been in the game any way it just tends to take the piss