Wrong you either killed the person with M30 drilling single fire(which acts like a single rifle bullet)or you killed him using the slugs ammo on the M1897.

and I'm sure the other player whom shot him first loved that kill assist.

Playing on PS4, I've been having the opposite experience, actually. This weekend I was using the M30 hitting guys with both shots from maybe 20 yards and doing 50-90 damage, it was really wierd, part of that is my inept aiming but it wasn't just that. I got the drop on a guy, was less than 5 yards away from him put BOTH shots on his chest, he turned around and blew me away. I was so confused. Plus, I tend to like OP more than nerfs in shooters. Although the MGs are stupid accurate and irritate the crap outta me.

Not sure how that got passed Dices Q&A but it had an easy fix for the time being.Either switch to another team mate or just press O

Michael Pachter, instant ignore.

Even then with the talent Valve had they could have made it work in L4D and just update it.

The fact is they clearly wanted to have a full game made by them, not Turtle Rock.

The game just felt very different in tone aswell, I liked the dark creepy atmosphere in the first game. In the second it’s all sunny where you are biting tanks with a frying pan. Even the original survivors were better

I think what EA is aiming for is a three-team development cycle, with each team getting around three years to work on their own Battlefield title. That way, instead of a game being rushed out in a single year, they can stagger the releases. Over a 5–6 year span, the schedule would allow them to put out a new Battlefield every year, while still giving each studio enough time to develop their own entry.

Call of Duty already does this, and we’ve seen that simply giving three years doesn’t automatically guarantee quality. My question is—why can’t EA focus on supporting the current Battlefield for years to come instead of immediately chasing the next release? They’d still be able to make plenty of money without rushing a new game to market.

To be fair, EA has made a few pro-player moves lately, like launching on Steam day one, skipping the EA app requirement, and avoiding overpriced cosmetic skins. But at the end of the day, it’s still EA—and history shows they’ll always chase short-term profit, even at the cost of the game’s long-term health

I was almost outraged too... until I saw who was saying it. Filing it firmly under BS now.

Then we'd not only have EA FC, but also EA BC.

"Great"!

Exactly 💯

After I burnt 100 quids on the gold edition of 2042 with a blind pre-order and for as much as they are creating hype on secondary features like the 120 fps thing .... my humble suggestion is to wait for the game to actually release, have it reviewed by REAL gamers and NOT paid Youtubers and if it hits 86 or above on users' review on MetaCritics it will be a buy for me. Any lack of maps, variety, gameplay or key features that they have implemented in other BF game will be a NO GO on my end. More so as this is EA a company I loved in the early era of video gaming but that now has become the king of microtransactions and deceptive marketing.

Why not? Do tell.

Base PS5 can do 120 fps with HDMI 2.1.