Games are more than just interactive, mechanical experiences. They are also advertisements, marketplaces, social networks, content platforms, and so much more. Thus, as pieces of dynamic media, I think that videogames can sometimes be a great form to hone in on when it comes to interrogating questions that relate to business, marketing, design, or even more esoteric concepts like user experience.
Many studios that have released titles between the months of September and November 2021 have generally been smart enough to observe a lot of these aspects at once—and one could argue that it is for these reasons, games such as Rider’s Republic, Back 4 Blood, Deathloop, and Forza Horizon 5 have been so incredibly successful.
For as great as these titles are, however, there are naturally certain marks that each studio doesn’t hit: missed opportunities in the writing process, poor design decisions on the game menus, bad multiplayer connections on release, or even bad performance optimization. Rarely, however, does a game come along and fail to hit almost all of these qualitative benchmarks, and explode onto the scene as an abysmal dumpster fire of code and character modeling.
In 2020, Cyberpunk 2077 was that game. In 2021, it is Battlefield 2042.
As a Battlefield fan: Yes, I was foolish enough to set high expectations for this game, and yes, I have been left severely disappointed.
Without deviating too much into details about the things people have rightfully whined and bitched about, this much is certain: the smorgasbord of foreign feature sets, characters, and mechanics will likely be what turns people off from this game—and in the end, it will be a culmination of bad UX decisions that will cement Battlefield 2042’s legacy as a franchise failure.
To be honest, I don’t know if these decisions can be rectified. Nonetheless, let’s talk about that.
As a gamer, I think that speaking on any topic as large as this one can sometimes lead to the temptation to talk about unrelated shit, such as “how we got here,” publisher business models, or—for fucks sake—the history of gaming. But the truth of the matter is that none of these topics are relevant enough to dedicate paragraphs—or god forbid, pages—to their discussion.
While this reality may be more common in app development, I think to say that something is an utter UX failure in gaming is conceivably one of the deepest digs that you can make at a franchise. Considerably, when contemporary video gaming is almost entirely about mechanics, immersion, and yes, fun factor—almost everything about a particular title will manage to circle back around to a discussion about user experience. Based on this premise, Battlefield 2042 is an utter UX failure.
The scope of Battlefield 2042’s UX failures could be delineated into several key categories: Familiarity, or the ability to build off of pre-existing knowledge. Utility, or more specifically, the actual usability of various gameplay features, as well as how well they work with one another. Finally, in lieu of say, something like enjoyment, there is immersion—which many times helps portend to key aspects of enjoying the experience itself, as well as the user’s overall desire to return to it.
Familiarity
When observing franchises that occur in regular iterations—be they shooters, sports games, or RPGs—I think it is fair for users to expect two things in particular, when looking at the newest installment. The first is that it is entirely reasonable for the user to expect many aspects of the new title, from the menu design, to character movement, to customization abilities, will be familiar experiences that he or she can interact with. Additionally, I think it is fair for the user to expect for newer titles to be “additive experiences.” Put another way, gamers want sequels that feel familiar, but still have some new features added in to increase the overall sophistication of the experience itself.
On the topic of things that were naturally expected to be the same, much could be discussed, from the incredible—and unwarranted—dumbing down of movement mechanics, the complete removal of almost a half-dozen game modes, or even the absence of simple items such as a scoreboard, or game chat. But nothing highlights the gross unfamiliarity of Battlefield 2042 the way that the new, and oft-reviled, specialist system has been incorporated to replace the game’s class system that has been around for almost 20 years—and is at this point, a franchise staple. To be frank, I’m sure there are many things that EA would like to point as examples of 2042 “still being a Battlefield franchise,” such as gunplay, map destruction, or the “chaos factor,” but truth be told, while Battlefield has done these things well compared to other shooters in its category, these things as standalone aspects applied to a game would not make that game a Battlefield title. Fundamentally, one of the most standout features of the Battlefield franchise is that it promotes specializing through classes. Without classes, Battlefield is really just another military shooter. With classes, you have a game that forces people to extend their tactics to their play style, making sure that certain contingencies are covered, and playing to address or prevent those contingencies. Your squad, and the presence of your squad, is what anchors your ability to survive in Battlefield, so having people available that are able to fulfill certain roles is why classes exist—all the same, the interdependency of these classes is what promotes players working together.
Conventionally, the problem with Battlefield’s new specialist system is that on one hand, it completely replaces the class system instead of running alongside it, thereby de-necessitating the need or requirement for people to play together as a team. This reality is only further anchored by having the ability to equip almost any kind of gear with any kind of specialist. Unlike many people’s expectations that having this level of open-endedness to the class system would eventuate into completely broken and unfair builds, it seems as if the opposite has happened as well. While some player builds are avowedly broken, most of the time the specialist system just promotes lone wolfing and less squad-based play. In a Battlefield where every member of a squad can effectively have the same specialist, with each specialist in that squad having a different setup, there is no need for players to rely on one another—which leads to games that are disorganized, less tactical, and unabashedly chaotic—but annoying chaotic, not “good” chaotic.
There is also the issue of the specialist system flying directly and aggressively in the face of where people want first-person shooters such as Battlefield to go—and even seemed the franchise was headed. Particularly on the end of soldier customization, I find it appalling that 2042 would take such a measurable step backward from individual soldier customizations and vanity items that helped add more flavor and character to the experience. Outside of the obvious issue that this produces with players looking the same as one another, the other issue that comes as a result is that the game feels less like a modern AAA shooter, and more like a modern free-to-play game. The truth of the matter is that many shooters today have some degree of player customization—and these features are becoming all the more important with games that have always multiplayer functions. To not have customization is to relegate players to a dull, impersonal experience that gamers are becoming less interested in as time goes on. Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of this design choice is that it is one that is fucking obvious. Do players want character customization? YES! Which means that there are really only two reasons why a game developer in 2021 would release a title without them: The first reason is that the developer wants to make a business model around selling characters, and the second reason is that the developer doesn’t have the time to build into character customization. As you can tell, however, both of these explanations are hella fucking whack.
Utility
On the end of feature utility, Battlefield 2042 is a mixed bag. For instance, you could say that a positive addition to the game is the way that the attachments system works, where players can interchange parts on their weapons in real-time without having to go to the deployment screen. Inversely, the differences between gun attachments is fairly basic, with differences between attachments in the same category being nominal or nonexistent. For example, if you get two suppressors, there is statistically nothing that makes one different from the other—thereby rendering the entire point in having multiple suppressors for the same weapon a functionally useless feature. The same applies to compensators, red dot optics, and other categories of gear.
Naturally, the problem with this entire approach to weapon customization is that while it would seem like a weapon has many different, nuanced, customization options, in reality, the developers are furnishing the player with the illusion of choice. The fact of the matter is that when you have earned a red dot, suppressor, or grip, you might as well treat that as if you have earned all of them. Hell, even in some cases—such as grips—where there might be a stat penalty for movement, these penalties are nominally perceptible. How bad is it? In all, I would say that around ¼ – 1/3 of the available attachments in the game are redundant, and might as well not even exist.
All the same, the incorporation of certain systems in the name of convenience has led to the neglect, or downright bottoming out, of others. The things that come to mind are the way that vehicles work. While on one hand, it is nice to press two buttons and have access to a variety of vehicles and support items—in part, because the maps are fucking huge—on the other hand, none of these items cost anything. Typically, items that were usable through the bumper buttons were earned by following the squad leader’s commands and using the points earned by following orders. But since these items are free, squad members no longer have an in-field incentive to follow the orders of their leader. It completely negates the existence of the squad points system, disincentivizes team play, and makes games chaotic—and as I mentioned before: “bad” chaotic, not “good” chaotic.
Then there is the question of utility as it pertains to the specialist system itself, and if even the incorporation of specialist characters necessitates the utility of the abilities that they bring in tow. To this, however, the answer is a resounding no—and it is here where the lion’s share of Battlefield’s entire UX problem resides. Because for as much as the specialist abilities are interesting—and in some cases, unique—they didn’t need to have an entire cast of contrived characters made up to explain why these abilities are even in play in the first place.
The sad as all get out truth of Battlefield 2042 is that if Dice was really interested in making additive, good faith innovations to its hit franchise, all they had to do was add a second slot to each class for the specialist ability, while still making it so that players could customize each class.
The only problem is, well, that’s not what Dice did. Rather, they released a game whose latest features were not good-faith attempts at adding to its success but were pieces of a greater puzzle that was part and parcel of an deliberately thought, overly elaborate, money-grubbing profit scheme. Furthermore, if there is anything ironic to take from it all, it is that if EA wanted to expand its profits, the path to doing so was not by making UX considerations that placed priority on making money. The path to doing so was by making UX decisions based on researching what the hell the user wanted. Evidently, Dice did not like that and decided to make decisions based on the fact that they thought they knew better than their users. The only problem with that logic is that even if Dice did somehow know better than the people who played their games, something that I have learned even as a graphic designer is that most customers don’t care if you know better than them. For the most part, they only care about getting what the fuck they want.
Immersion
The question of immersion as it pertains to shooters—be they tactical shooters, arena shooters, or sci-fi shooters—is how much can the player take ownership over their experience? Generally, progression in shooters can be broken into two categories: performative progression, and vestigial progression. The former involves earning items that measurably affect the quality of your play, while the latter involves earning items that are largely visual, and are really only there to provide some personalization options, or to make your look cool. The Battlefield franchise has historically been no different, except in that it has brought character customization later than titles such as Call of Duty and Destiny. Nonetheless, in some installments, Battlefield has absolutely led the genre in terms of leveling nuance, progression, and depth of scope.
On the topic of vestigial progression, 2042 is objectively disappointing compared to titles such as, say, Battlefield V which had class models, and outfits based on those classes that could be unlocked through leveling up, as well as completing special objectives in certain game modes. Being on next generation, I think that many players believed Battlefield 2042 would be able to benefit from such a system and even one that had a broader array of customization options and vanity features on display because—well, microtransactions. Having almost none of these features, 2042 not only feels like a measurable step backward, but a comically missed opportunity for a company that seems ever-too-eager to make quick cash off of a la carte game items, and digital tchotchkes that many players would argue should already be earnable in the fucking game. Perhaps most frustrating, is the fact that this step backward is on a franchise where Dice’s desire to incorporate racial and gender diversity, conceptual character outfits, and offbeat melee weapons would have been welcome—instead of subject to the extreme criticisms they faced in Battlefield V.
On the topic of performative progression, you could argue that based on my observations earlier regarding attachments, some of this progression is absolutely vestigial—and useless—in nature. But past this, it would seem to me that another missed opportunity to increase player hours—and let’s be honest, make more money—would have been to lock all of the specialist abilities behind leveling requirements for each class. With there being 12 specialists, there could have been 3 starting abilities per class that unlock on each third of the class progression line. For players that wanted the recon drone, they should have had to level up to recon mastery 3 for that, all the same, hacking vehicles should have been recon mastery 6, while the wall hack should have been recon mastery 10. All the same, abilities can remain powerful by retaining class specific guns–which would force abilities into a clearer upper limit for performance. The wall-hack ability would not feel nearly as broken if a player only had a DMR or sniper rifle as their fastest assaulting gun, and would be controlled by the rate of fire and magazine size.
Instead, what we have is a hellscape of tactical grandmas picking up a sea of dead tactical Jake Gyllenhaal’s, that have all been mowed down by an army of cute little Asian girls with x-ray sunglasses and SMGs, aggressively bunny-hopping around the lead being thrown at them from down range. For as much as that image is comical, it’s no secret that certain aspects of this game are just broken. And while all of that may be funny to someone who has bothered to read so far as this paragraph, the issue is that for want of anything to latch onto, come back to, or chase, the game is just uninteresting. Without class progression, the game is just uninteresting. Without attachment nuance, to justify weapon progressions, the game is just uninteresting.
And that’s a problem.
Conclusion
The sad truth of Battlefield 2042 is that it will likely be more remembered for its bad mechanics, poor UX, and missed opportunities than it will be for any set of innovations that it brings to the shooter space—or for even just being a fun game. While players may have hoped that this game would have been a return to Battlefield III form, the truth of the matter is that 2042 could have been so much more than that. It had the makings to be the “Destiny of war games.” Instead, we are left with a reductive mess that barely befits the attention of the free-to-play circuit. How did dice get here? They copied bad ideas, rushed good ones, and didn’t pay attention to the players that help make their game what it is. So instead of giving them what they wanted, Dice gave players what Dice wanted. The problem with this line of thinking is that for as much as developers may believe they have the luxury to produce what they want, the reality is that the player has the luxury of declining to play the game.
To some, that may be a perfect answer, and to others, what I said may ring similarly to statements such as “if you don’t like it, don’t play.” But here’s the thing: if anybody should care about who plays Battlefield 2042, it isn’t other players, its Dice. Why? Because at the end of the day, games that don’t get played, don’t get made.
The Battlefield franchise has always been a flagship product in EA’s lineup of games, and one that—while not always getting it right—has more times than not succeeded in its delivery. But to many in the community, what the future holds for Dice doesn’t seem much brighter than the state of this game. The truth of the matter is that for as much as the Battlefield franchise has been a showcase series of paramount proportions, and a beloved series for serious FPS enthusiasts around the world, there are many people who are talking about Battlefield’s time having come to pass. While I don’t know if that is the case, and I certainly have hopes for the franchise writ-large, the truth of the matter is that I have seen crazier claims made that were also accurate… After all, EA has shut down studios for less.
No Comments