>>17229543I wrote a wall about 2042 before realizing that you said 2142.
I don't know anything about 2142 other than it exists, so, eh.
From watching videos, it looks like exactly as how 1942 would play but with a coat of futuristic paint over it. But the vehicles look particularly cool to use. Although I wonder if they're any fun to play against. Tanks sure aren't enjoyable to go up against from my experience, so let alone hovering ones.
I bet it's not balanced in the slightest, but I don't doubt that it'd be infinitely more fun to play than 1942 if it's simply more polished in general. That's all that game needed.
Other than that, that futuristic warfare theme is just cool. It's a shame that basically no game nowadays sets foot near it because of how much CoD & Co. saturated the genre. You could put all the effort and love you wanna put into a game and have it be as good as you want, but if it's a futuristic shooter, people are just going to ignore it cause it looks to be too generic. Even now after all these years.
Remember how much people shit on those futuristic CoD games back in the day simply for having that theme? While those games did more to bring some flavor into the franchise than any of the entries in the past few years. Now you can see the same group of people talking about how those games were actually good and yada yada.
But because they tanked so hard at the time, it's an absolute no-no for triple A now. Going to be a long time before they try again with it, if ever.
I think that whole era was actually a big turning point into how shitty and lazy game development is today.
Those futuristic CoD games, they were pretty samey, sure, but they actually had an insane amount of effort put into their making if you care to look behind the scenes. Yet they practically tanked. I'd say that turned publishers towards shitting things out with the least amount of effort put in because they figured it just doesn't pay off not to. My two cents.
