Battlefield 3, the MMOFPS.

[Sheeple Police]

Re: Battlefield 3, the MMOFPS.

any reason for that objection or do you just fear the "MMO" label?

Perhaps it is the $12.99/month for no new content w/o an expansion, and the same type of gameplay over...and over...and over again. Planetside was fun for a month, but got tiring as it just became a zerg-fest with very little coordination. And for the money you were paying you got absolutely no new content from the game unless you bought an expansion. Plus the inaccuracy of the weapons in Planetside made BF2's cone of fire look tight.

You also forget there is no way to "win" an MMO, no matter what your team cannot win. Sure they can lock down a continent, but they will never truly beat the other team. Meanwhile in the BF series part of the game is winning the map.

Please tell me what you will gain from BF3 being a MMOFPS?

[{NOC}FTO]

Re: Battlefield 3, the MMOFPS.

errrrr can we just get bf2 sorted first guys eh?

[MoB|GunnerDoop]

Re: Battlefield 3, the MMOFPS.

Imagine how laggy it will be. How many times it will crash. how many bugs there will be. All the hacks that will come out for it. Stats padding will somehow be created.

Too many problems EA apparently can't fix, so why start something new when they havn't finished something already started?

[Consultant01]

Re: Battlefield 3, the MMOFPS.

Perhaps it is the $12.99/month for no new content w/o an expansion, and the same type of gameplay over...and over...and over again. Planetside was fun for a month, but got tiring as it just became a zerg-fest with very little coordination. And for the money you were paying you got absolutely no new content from the game unless you bought an expansion. Plus the inaccuracy of the weapons in Planetside made BF2's cone of fire look tight.

You also forget there is no way to "win" an MMO, no matter what your team cannot win. Sure they can lock down a continent, but they will never truly beat the other team. Meanwhile in the BF series part of the game is winning the map.

Please tell me what you will gain from BF3 being a MMOFPS?

all your complaints have more to do with the execution of the MMOFPS genre and SOE's clear failures. Consider a round of Karkand a skirmish. a War the scale of WW2 had thousands of skirmishes across dozens of locations... win some lose some. It would be no different in an MMOFPS based on BF2 and it was no different in Planetside. if Karkand, Mashtuur, Sharqi, Warlord, Jalalabad and 5 other massive maps were combined into one massive "Iraq" map and each one was its own command point where once one team locked down that point they got the benefits of, say a sea-port or an airfield, or an armor factory... they could use the assets of that city to help win the overall battle-de-jour in the Iraq map.


Pretty much every game you play more than once is repetative, basically. Karkand got repetative the first day I got the game... same with all the other maps.

If they were compiled into a persistent world where land was battled for and the front-lines of the war moved day-to-day... thats epic.

if the concept is lost on you and you dwell in the execution of past attempts, you need to shake off the cobwebs and try to get a little more positive of an outlook.

Cheers.

The future of games is much more than 32 on 32 2-sided deathmatch on small maps like Karkand.

[Fatboy40]

Re: Battlefield 3, the MMOFPS.

any reason for that objection or do you just fear the "MMO" label?

I know that eventualy all games will be like this but right now these are the main points that annoy me...

Singleplayer goes out of the window.
We pay for the game and then we have to pay all over again for a monthly sub.
Those with a slow Internet connection are excluded from the fun (for the record I have 8Mb DSL).

... I may be a little bit jaded but one thing that I've learnt from playing BF2 on-line is that there are a hell of a lot of arrogant jerks out there who think they have a God given right to do what they want when they want, playing a game and having 'fun' seem to be the principles that we're all forgetting

Being a family man and not having the time a teenager or single person would have to spend on a PC seems to automaticaly exclude me from a few good games, I don't want to loose BF as well.

Now I must go and change a nappy/diaper and get off of my soapbox

[Consultant01]

Re: Battlefield 3, the MMOFPS.

Fatboy! You're the perfect audience for the MMO genre! Consider this.

Annoying jerks, impetulant teenagers and the general feces of the gaming community generally can't be brought to pay monthly for a game subscription. Also, your fees go toward employing "game monitors" who deal with live requests for customer service in response to complaints about these annoying jerks!

I also am a family man (albeit a yank) who changes pleanty of diapers and I think it would be pretty cool to login for my hour a night, take part in a dynamic battle... maybe even join an Outfit (Called "guilds" in MMORPG's) and particiapte on an organized raid.

Man, back when I was way into Planetside, we used to raid weekly on Thursdays. 70 or more of us gathered together, planning and executing precise attacks on our enemy's territories (which changed every week, so the fight was never the same).


For a more mature gamer, who has less time to deal with imature BS, I think pay-to-play is the smartest way to go. There is an implied level of service that you would recieve if you were paying a company specifically to provide it.

[FPS[VT_NERD]]

Re: Battlefield 3, the MMOFPS.

If such a game were to ever come out I would only play it on the condition that there was no monthly fee like Everquest or any other MMORPG. If you expect to charge me a monthly fee, then don't expect me to buy your game. My $0.02.

*edit*

I have to completely disagree with the poster above me about maturity being a factor in pay to play. You are going to have immature gamers as long as teenagers and children can play (note to said age group: I'm not saying that all of you are this way, just a fair amount of the smacktards happen to be in your same age bracket. I'm also not implying that said age group should not be able to play games online). I've been playing BF2 for a year and 2 months now. If this were Everquest that would have been $181.30 (for the basic level) + the cost of the game. No game no matter how good it is, is worth that much money to play. Everyone thinks EA is greedy now, just imagine if you had to pay them even more money to keep playing.

[Venomous]

Re: Battlefield 3, the MMOFPS.

servers/companies that require subscriptions are worthless and greedy for money

[Consultant01]

Re: Battlefield 3, the MMOFPS.

clearly you're not of the ilk that enjoys such content. You get what you pay for.

BF2 is evidence of that. When do you think was the last time that Blizzard or Mythic released a patch with more bugs than it fixed? How about never?

Monthly fees pay for armies of developers, testers and true QA.

Your $49.99 retail purchase doesnt exactly carry as much industry weight toward supporting a title.

[Roger Smith]

Re: Battlefield 3, the MMOFPS.

ive never seen a mmo game that requires any aiming or manuvering skill so you can see how the idea doesnt sound very apealing.

[Consultant01]

Re: Battlefield 3, the MMOFPS.

servers/companies that require subscriptions are worthless and greedy for money

Opinions like that come from people too cheap to pay for quality which is exactly the people I'd not like to see in a BF themed MMOFPS.

So thanks for clearing that up!

Cheers!

ive never seen a mmo game that requires any aiming or manuvering skill so you can see how the idea doesnt sound very apealing.

https://www.planetside.com

[FPS[VT_NERD]]

Re: Battlefield 3, the MMOFPS.

clearly you're not of the ilk that enjoys such content. You get what you pay for.

BF2 is evidence of that. When do you think was the last time that Blizzard or Mythic released a patch with more bugs than it fixed? How about never?

Monthly fees pay for armies of developers, testers and true QA.

Your $49.99 retail purchase doesnt exactly carry as much industry weight toward supporting a title.

Perhaps you have a bit of a point. However, BF2 has been poorly supported because of the decisions of EA/Dice in my opinion. There are plenty of other FPS games that have developers who consistently release good solid patches without introducing tons more bugs into the game.

Charging all players monthly subscription fees guarantees nothing...especially from EA/Dice. Well I take that back, it guarantees the board of directors over at EA is going to get even wealthier, but nothing else.

Even with all the bugs, I really enjoy BF. I won't be switching to QW. Those who switch might find better patches and what not, but they still won't be paying a monthly fee.

Perhaps what I'm trying to say in a roundabout way is that, the level of support and quality you can expect is more closely tied to the developer than the amount of money you are paying said developer. Blizzard and the likes don't necessarily make better games or patches because of the monthly fees, but because they're not as money-centric as EA has turned out to be.

[Consultant01]

Re: Battlefield 3, the MMOFPS.

*edit*

I have to completely disagree with the poster above me about maturity being a factor in pay to play. You are going to have immature gamers as long as teenagers and children can play (note to said age group: I'm not saying that all of you are this way, just a fair amount of the smacktards happen to be in your same age bracket. I'm also not implying that said age group should not be able to play games online). I've been playing BF2 for a year and 2 months now. If this were Everquest that would have been $181.30 (for the basic level) + the cost of the game. No game no matter how good it is, is worth that much money to play. Everyone thinks EA is greedy now, just imagine if you had to pay them even more money to keep playing.

the 10 million people around the world playing World of Warcraft disagree with your statement that no game is worth that much money.

I see what you are saying, but the situation in the MMO marketplace does not back it up.

You've clearly stated that it isnt worth it to *YOU* but ya dont speak for the entire gaming community.

I also agree that a few smacktards will certainly sign up for every game... the difference is in how they are dealt with.


In BF2, say a smacktard is making your play experience less than stellar... to the point where he is offending you and a large portion of the server. You better hope there's a server admin on. If not, your only other option is to leave. What if its a good game? What if you're winning?


In an MMO, you submit a ticket in-game and get a response... the offending smacktard could have his account suspended, you can put people on ignore so you dont have to deal with their antics...

As far as dealing with immature gamers, MMO's have that one nailed.

[imported_Master Shake]

Re: Battlefield 3, the MMOFPS.

How about working on the imfamous 128 player servers first,....I would like to see that come true. Imagine Kubra,Zatar, and shougua with 64 a side...fun fun.

[[MyIS]Spetsnaz]

Re: Battlefield 3, the MMOFPS.

I'm not with this bandwagon, sorry

I think Battlefield should stay Battlefield. Let other developers worry about this new genre. Personally, I think it will be impossible to retain the beauty of Battlefield gameplay/graphics and sink in a deep MMO element.

If I want a touch of RPG, I play Oblivion.
If I want a touch of realism, I play Operation Flashpoint or FH BF1942.
If I want crazy action with land/sea/air, I play BF2.

There's no poin in having a "massive" game with 64 players. It should be a minimum 200 per server with large maps to be considered "massive".