What Happened to Battlefield's Map Design?

Join this channel to get access to perks:

Hardware – Xbox Series X, UCEC Gam Live Ultra, Elgato Wave 3

Battlefield , Battlefield 2042 , Call of Duty , Call of Duty Vanguard , Halo Infinite , Insurgency Sandstorm

[AnAmericanMusician]

You'd think that urban environments would be a perfect fit for 2042 considering the story revolves around the fall of civilization. Imagine if we could have that cool flooded London from Exodus as a map.

[Gue]

BF1 also had deeper terrain deformation. So there were plenty of craters to replace destroyed cover. From what I remember last time I played 2042, it was pretty shallow, just like the destruction overall. I don't mind the more open natural maps, as long as they are balanced for infantry to survive more than 5 seconds, and have interesting locations. But I am really craving some dense urban maps like from BF3 and BF4. They always felt more tactical and tense.

[kuzidas]

These large natural maps worked well in BF1 because automatic weapons had limited effective range and the TTK was slow enough so that you had a chance to make the run and not immediately get beamed.

This added to the “feel” of WW1 where you could feel like you’re in a stalemate until your team makes a massive push across an open field.

In BF2042, you can be two-hit-killed by automatic weapons from up to 75m away, vehicles (including helicopters, which unlike planes, don’t have to circle back around and can hover/strafe giving little reprieve) move quickly to intercept infantry in exposed locations. Mackay and Sundance are so popular not just because they are fun but also because trying to get from POI to POI in 2042 is just so much more ass when you aren’t one of those two when there are so few lanes that leave you safe from long range snipers (read: Railgunners) and vehicles.


TL;DR: the “natural” map design worked in BF1 because of the slower TTK, slower vehicles, and stalematey frontlines. The design does not suit highly lethal and accurate vehicles and weapons.

[Mulderfactoring]

Bad Company 2 changed BF with the massive destruction and great levels too. I almost think Bad Company 2 was more important than any other title for changing how Battlefields were played. It made BF3 and BF4 possible.

[DJohn]

Im surprised they isn’t any naval combat maps in this game . I still play bf4 very often and absolutely love the naval strike maps . Love when the ship crashes on the island and the storm comes changing the whole map into an almost night time thunderstorm . Perfect for sniping and using thermal scopes . I feel like so far in 2042 it’s just always one massive tower in the center of the map and a bunch of little towns around it .

[stephenazevedo]

I miss the lumbering feel of BF3. It felt much more tactical, where 2042 movement is way too fast. It’s nearly impossible to move with your squad. Not to mention the lack of squad tools and ability to stay in a server.

[abukareem]

100% agree. My biggest issue with Battlefield since BF1 released is most maps are bad. Compartmentalization of BF3/4 maps is gone. Some of the BF3 maps are iconic and i dont understand why they won't look at those and learn from them.

[nurfyturf]

Dice impression of map design in 2042: add in one unique structure copy and pasted indestructible structures around the area, change the terrain depending on the location( good thing), than copy and paste industrial buildings from orbital and discarded and change the color to make them look different.

[HaydenBigler]

Grand Bazaar was so good! I really just wish we could get BF3 maps added in to the game already. BF3 had the best maps of all time

[nyc]

I started playing on BF2 and I like to see some of those maps come in into 2042 like the map of Karkand. I agree, there should be more of urban warfare with mostly infantry, limited vehicle and no air cover. Also, I wished they bring back close quarters games.

[misteriogre]

the problem is not open maps, the problem is that if 75% of the map is open then the more close quarters section that is the other 25% has to be spread out carefully, but DICE has been creating maps where all the cqc section are clustered into a single blob. They need to follow the direction of Bad Company 2

[paradoxinraindrops]

One thing I liked about Hardline was the shift towards more urban settings. Even a forest level to me felt relatable cause I see myself walking through those paths, driving down those roads.

Then there was Battlefield One’s war scarred terrain where there usually being just a glimpse of a small patch of the world beyond the battle line; the fields not having been gutted with trenches, nature abuzz not having been leveled by mortar or stained by viscera. It made it feel like you were running head long into hell itself towards apocalypse.

At first, 2042 genuinely hyped me up with the idea of city scapes, landscapes just annihilated by a climate crisis of biblical proportion. But everything was squeaky clean and wide open at first cause 2042 was initially going to be a Battle Royals.

The newest maps have felt like a throwback to BF3, BF4 which is great though. Combat and objective play feels much more directed which to me is peak Battlefield: organized chaos.

[nicholasgmatthews]

Great points. 2042 could really use urban maps, though I don’t think it’s completely accurate to say BF3/4 only has urban maps. Some of the more popular maps were natural too (Caspian Border, Operation Firestorm). But I agree that the number of urban maps in the last couple games has been too few.

My favorite BF map is Oasis from BC1. You start in an open desert with tanks and helicopters, and progress into an infantry-only urban village. A mix of urban and natural is a great way to shake things up, whether they are combined in one map or you simply have some maps be natural and others urban.

[albertsaffron]

I want maps set in future Australia, Sydney would look/be incredible as a mix of infantry and vehicles. The Gold Coast is literally skyscrapers against golden sand beaches where you could have a flood event in a tight urban environment (because climate change or something).
Also, I want to see a map that starts in the fields of a country town, that gradually moves into the town itself as a bush fire rolls in from the forest, changing it from a natural environment to an urban one

[Misterh]

I loved the maps in BF3/4, in those games you had jungles, deserts, snowy mountains too but also you had small towns, factories, cities which can be changed like Siege of Shanghai or Flood Zone that can be... Well... Flooded and now you can use boats between the buildings. It was brilliant.

[shawnyscore]

Great take. I really like natural maps with weather effects. I like the direction 2042 is going towards. However we do need urban maps. Like karkand shangai and grand bazar. Amiens also. I would love to see a siege of shanguai retaken by nature in season 5. A post apocalyptic feel to it would be a very cool concept

[BlackTearsYT]

I think the urban maps are a bit of a double edged sword.

They provide some natural vehicle balance, like you mentioned. Ground vehicles are more limited in where they can go and the sightlines they can cover. This means they don't have to be nerfed so heavily since they can only control small areas, and have more difficulty escaping when enemy infantry wants to destroy these vehicles. Plus skyscrapers make flying much more difficult and require much more skill, which again makes the vehicles require less nerfs. And then obviously all the building interiors provide tons of cover from these vehicles.

I also agree about the "awe factor" of these maps. Even now, it's still incredible loading into Siege of Shanghai and seeing a war take place in a dense urban environment. It really drives home the idea that war has consumed the world and that it's stretched far beyond traditional battlefields.

However, these environments can be wildly annoying with how much camping they allow. Battlefield is infamous for all the players that want nothing more than to camp from hundreds of meters away in pockets nearly impossible to dislodge them from, or atop tall buildings with no viable way to kill them from below, while they just farm kills and take pot shots. Sure they might lose the game, but winning the game from the other side isn't a very fun experience. Plus, depending on the map, sometimes moving between interiors can be a tedious and frustrating endeavor. Enemy vehicles can very easily start controlling those exteriors and make players feel unable to leave the one place in which they've found a bit of safety. Many times, dense urban maps just becomes continually spawning on one or two interior areas and never leaving them to avoid being insta killed by a tank, helo, or any of the dozen snipers. Coming back from that position often feels annoying and unfulfilling.

I also think 2042 isn't the fairest comparison since we all know by now that it was originally designed to be a BR, not a conventional Battlefield game. With that in mind, the open space and larger gaps between points of interest make a lot of sense, a core part of BR map design is power positions and high risk movement as the player is forced to rotate. A lot of the launch maps very obviously were originally BR maps hurriedly repurposed.

I would like to see them lean more toward the mix we have in BF5, which I think has some great urban, chaotic maps, some really sparse and open maps, and some that have a blend. Maybe we'll get an urban map at some point in the future for 2042, but I do expect them to return in the next title that is intended to be conventional Battlefield from the start.

[R-SXX]

I think you missed a crucial part of the whole design thing: it is astonishing how many assets in 2042 are just QUIXEL ASSETS. From tarps you can download as well from the bridge to terrain textures, photogrammetry has come so far, that many publishers and devs wanna utilize the tech that is able to finally create life like natural environments.

It might be easier to create a good looking empty field, but I also think that it's harder to create believable areas like that. Atmosphere, wind, sound, moving grass... I truly believe that its easier to create a cityscape, especially with duplicating assets or trim sheets. THOUGH creating city's and locations like that is a challenge on the other hand, due to ACTUALLY designing routes, overviews, sightlines, and obviously, a good looking aesthetic.

I wish that we had more maps like the background of kaleidoscope. High towers with war between them.

[gremlin_uwu]

I get your point about BF1 starting this trend but even back then there used to be a ton lot more cover and buildings, I can't remember any of the map names tbh but the urban combat in that map with the train, the trenches in the night map, the french fortress, all of those maps use lots of assets and are amazing

[liuziyu]

The environment doesn’t matter as much as the level design. If the city maps were not designed well, the game still gonna suck