|
|
Post by swfwebmaster on Apr 13, 2012 23:44:37 GMT 1
I apologize for neglecting our clan. I have been preoccupied with saving the world. There is no pressure to join the cause. Here is where I have diverted a lot of time and energy lately.
|
|
PhoenixKsE
Excellent Contributor
The one and only... PhoenixKsE
Posts: 346
|
Post by PhoenixKsE on Apr 14, 2012 9:48:40 GMT 1
Problem is, EA/DICE are never going to realize this unless they see some consequences. They need to lose fans and money. Then and only then will they start thinking about what they used to be and what they've become: a generalized, "user-friendly", run-and-gun Call of Duty style piece of steamy brown excrement that they have the entire community eating day after day with no substitute to wash it down with. I'm almost to that point, just giving up, not playing anymore, because let's think about it: if I wanted to play COD, I'd buy COD or any of the OTHER clones. Why do EA and DICE have to take my favorite series, put it (and all other COD-style games) into a blender and see what comes out?
Go get 'em Sauron!
|
|
|
|
Post by pershainovitsh on Apr 14, 2012 13:42:40 GMT 1
I can bet Battlefield 4 will be even more casual-friendly than BF3. Regenerative health and armor, 3d spotting and audio spotting, nothing's easy enough for the casual player. We already lost ammunition counted in magazines in favor of the ammo pool. So if you have 60 bullets, shoot five and reload, you'll have 30 in the mag and 25 for backup. If ammunition was counted in magazines, in the same situation you'd only have 30 bullets left after reloading like in BF2&the mods. It's a simple thing that can make a huge difference. The next step is probably unimited ammo like with vehicles.
Sadly EA is only thinking of money. If making a CoD-clone (even when the market is full of them) makes money, they will make a CoD-clone. Making a BF2-like game with the new engine could generate a lot of money but EA isn't willing to take the risk. Medal of Honor, also produced by EA, is also a CoD-clone. I just don't get why can't EA use MoH as the CoD-clone for the simple-minded casuals and BF for the Battlefield experience?
Another thing I don't get is why don't people like Battlefield? Call of Duty gets stale really fast and you don't get those awesome non-scripted moments like in Battlefield. Like a Little Bird hovering in front of the warehouse you're hiding in and shootign at you. Or hopping in a chopper, jumping out with a parachute, throwing C4 and destroying a wall and finally landing at an M-Com and arming it. And those have happened in BF3, the least Battlefield-like Battlefield title there is. If it was made properly, those situations would have been even better, like the chopper pilot not seeing a red triangle behind a wall.
In a proper BF title, a death is never unfair. You get shot? You weren't careful enough. You got shot by a "camping" enemy? That's called defending, which is common in objective-based modes like Conquest and Rush. Pretty much always death is caused by not being careful enough or by getting outnumbered. In Call of Duty, you can get killed with one shot from dual shotguns, people spawn behind you all the time, and worst of all, you can get killed by AI-controlled vehicles, like helicopters. And I almost forgot to mention, getting killed by a guy running at you with a knife. Once you press the knifing button, you turn invincible. The knife is the most unbalanced, unfair and unrealistic weapon I've ever seen in a game. You can shoot on full auto at a guy who's doing the knife-leap but 99% of the time you can't kill him. And yet one more thing: the missile strikes. The only way of avoiding them is to either be lucky or indoors. And I'm usually neither. It's almost the same as artillery strikes in BF, but with the tiny maps and low player count CoD has, it is quite probable that you are the one getting killed with the missile.
...Once again I wrote a huge amount of text. I just can't write shortly. Anyway, I don't think Battlefield will ever be the same. It will turn more and more casual until it's exactly the same as CoD. At some point vehicles will be removed, mark my words. And at that point it's not even worth mentioning it's not Battlefield anymore.
|
|
Spartan0536
Excellent Contributor
Me with an M4A1 SOPMOD 1, using Oakley M-Frame Tac Glasses with transition lenses
Posts: 267
|
Post by Spartan0536 on Apr 14, 2012 17:28:19 GMT 1
I am hoping that with Armored Kill they manage to "re-capture" what the old battlefields brought, I am especially excited about mobile artillery and the possibility of calling in fire support. The new commo-rose is MUCH better and they did take in some community involvement. As for Close Quarters, I might not buy it, for me its about the guns and so far im not impressed. In the end I can only hope that when DICE is finished adding their content to this game that they give the community MOD TOOLS so that BF3 can live as long as BF2. Imagine FH3 or PR2 on BF3's Engine!
|
|
|
|
Post by swfwebmaster on Apr 14, 2012 18:23:32 GMT 1
I can bet Battlefield 4 will be even more casual-friendly than BF3... I agree. EA/DICE is not trying to make money in a vaccum. They have declared they are after the COD audience. The state of BF3 is not an accident. There was not a change in course in developing BF3 the year prior to the release in OCT 2011. DICE stated they were "lowering the complexity threshold" in FEB 2011. And, that is exactly what they did. Showcasing Operation Metro in "Alpha status" at the E3 Expo was not an accident. That was EA/DICE's closest COD-experience. DICE was, however, rushed to release in order to beat Modern Warfare 3 to the store shelves. What did catch many Battlefield Veterans off-guard was the intentional lying to try to win over/deceive Battlefield Veterans. EA/DICE put just enough false information out there to create doubt and prey upon hope. DICE is desensitizing/tapering into the generic COD-clone. The maps and User Interface (UI) were developed for consoles. And, EA/DICE did not want their new audience to be upset with a grander PC version of the game, so PC features were cut to the bone. "The lead platform is the PC" was primarily used to show-off their Frost Bite 2.0 engine. Giving false hope to Battlefield Veterans was an added bonus. The great reduction in vehicle use due to intentionally poor development and fanning away Battlefield Veterans will mandate the removal of vehicles. The TELEMETRY told them to do it. When DICE said they "Nailed it!," they honestly believe they did hit a home run and their bank account supports their delusion. The NDA was rigidly enforced to ensure the deception campaign would not falter. |
|
|
|
Post by swfwebmaster on Apr 14, 2012 18:45:27 GMT 1
I am hoping that with Armored Kill ... That's what got us into this mess. HOPE is not going to change DICE's set path to a COD-clone. DICE lied to us and will continue to lie to make money. Sad truth. |
|
|
|
Post by wobblyone on Apr 15, 2012 0:31:50 GMT 1
Scriv Wrote:
'What did catch many Battlefield Veterans off-guard was the intentional lying to try to win over/deceive Battlefield Veterans. EA/DICE put just enough false information out there to create doubt and prey upon hope.'
I don't agree with this. We all knew beforehand EA/DICE were lying. The only people deceived were those who never played 1942, BF2 or 2142.
Also, we all knew BF3 was not going to be a BF2 sequel but an improvement on BC2 (which it is).
I have accepted BF3 for what it is, and am enjoying the game as much as any of the previous games.
|
|
|
|
Post by swfwebmaster on Apr 15, 2012 5:24:11 GMT 1
|
|
