If you compare what both studios were making I think 2042 is way worse. It shouldn't be this difficult for DICE to make a Battlefield game, they've been making them for over a decade now. At least CDPR has the excuse that it was an entirely new genre for them, and had some high ambitions they failed to meet. But there's nothing overly ambitious about 2042 and they not only failed on making that part good, but it's also full of bugs and terrible performance for a pretty ugly game.
It may not be worse in your opinion but to say most critical glitches have been fixed before Christmas is a felt-out lie. Unless you are going to say the revive bug that still persists isn't a critical glitch or the aiming bug when existing vehicles or players being able to glitch into geometry and shoot players while they are unkillable isn't critical. Or the newly introduced bug of invisible players and an increase in the number of crashes. The hit detection may not be a glitch but it's pathetic that such a critical aspect of a multiplayer FPS is in the state that it's in.
Oh I'm not saying that there aren't glitches or anything. But right now you can at least play a couple of matches (when you can find them) and it won't be the mess that Cyberpunk was after two or three months of launch. You'll encounter glitches that absolutely need fix, but
most critical issues were adressed.
I think people saying that Cyberpunk is better in that regard is just recency bias. Cyberpunk straight up ran (still maybe) at below 20 fps in last gen. Like that's completely on a different level than BF2042. 2042 is closer to the BF4 launch in this aspect (and I still think that 2042 has been a bit more stable, if not by much, probably due to anectodal experience).
My biggest technical issue is that performance leaves a lot to be desired. I can stand a glitch here and there, but if on lower end hardware it's basically impossible to run well unless you have a 6+gb card and a 6+core CPU in a game that can be run in last gen consoles, then it's really poorly optimized.
I like battlefield scoreboard when it shows my score, and allow me to compare my score to others, so I know how good I'm doing compared to others while it push me to fight harder to climb that ladder.
But it tells you that. It tells you how your squad is doing, your own kills and points and how it compares to the top squads and teams as a whole.
Condescending much?
Just because you don't value the information doesn't mean it's useless for other people.
And just because the loud crowd say that "there isn't a scoreboard" doesn't mean it's true. There is one, with far more information than traditional scoreboards. They may not like it, but to say other thing it's hyperbole. It's a squad and team based game, the information that isn't there is only useful for lone wolf players.
It's a bigger issue the lack of VOIP, that the game doesn't communicate it's systems well, specialist balance and map layout. The scoreboard is the least of BF2042's problems.
