Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

DICE Could Have Made a Great BF3

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • DeadlyMACD
    replied
    Re: DICE Could Have Made a Great BF3

    Many of the features you've mentioned are what made us fans of the series. Hardcore fans want Battlefield games that utilize the pc to its fullest potential. I hope they can do both. I really do. We would be happier if the development cycle included time for pc excusive titles. In fact, I don't see any reason why it can't unless pushing the quantity of titles sold is an absolute priority. Either they are willing to sacrifice the quality of the pc game or they can develop high quality multiple platform games.

    I know its unfair to judge the games before release. Perhaps there won't be any loss of quality or the advances in these next gen games will outweigh the losses. I hope that is the case. But as fans I think we all have a right to express our concerns. We want Battlefield games optimized for the pc that retain large scale open warfare and the sandbox variety that made the series great.

    Leave a comment:


  • Webs961
    Guest replied
    Re: DICE Could Have Made a Great BF3

    Originally posted by dikinher
    Consider the fact that BF2 sold more copies in its first year than Bad Company had sold on PS3/360 together in its first year.
    At the time BF2 was released, it introduced significant improvements in gaming technology and playstyle. The squad system, in-game VoIP, the commander system and assets, vehicle combat, 64 player combat, extensive modding capabilities, etc. All of these things combined created a package which essentially took the FPS market by storm.


    Now, I'm starting to notice a general trend (I'm number 5/5 in the editorial posting line for the BF1943 reactions series) which I'll talk about in my editorial later on. Prior to posting the news about the BF2 1.5 patch, all anyone talked about was, "Jets suck, J10 needs a nerf, glitches, fags, whores, etc., we need a patch." After the announcment of the 1.5 patch, we get "OMFG NO BF3 ANNOUNCEMENT IN DICE INTERVIEW?!?!?! WTF YOU SUCK DICE AND TGN!!!!! /ragequit" Now that we have a new game announcement, it's "THIS SUCKS! IT ALL SUCKS! GO DIE IN A FIRE DICE AND FANCLUB!" (All words and emphasis mine).

    With that said, I will proffer my information on why this is a game targeted more toward the console market. First, (and yes, this is subject to heated debate) the gaming market, according to industry metrics, is moving toward the console arena. In order to maximize profits, launching a title in all markets simultaneously would appear to be the most intelligent decision. Based upon the interview information where the DICE employee spoke about the decision to have a 24 player limit, he specifically talked about the limits and constraints placed upon the information transfer over proprietary gaming console networks. This being said, the PC market could easily handle higher limits on such traffic since, all things being equal, "modern" computers tend to be more powerful than the current generation of gaming consoles. It, therefore, is a reasonable inference to say that in order to ensure that all markets can be targeted in a cost effective manner, DICE has retained the console logic, at least in terms of its multiplayer system, and moved it to the PC arena.

    Such a change is virtually unheard of in the PC gaming market; whether this is good or bad (going back to BF2 redefining the modern combat FPS) we can't yet determine. However, based upon the information currently released to the public, I feel as though I would enjoy the experience more were I a veteran console gamer than a veteran PC gamer. However, this is no reason for the Battlefield community to become so defensive over the PC exclusivity of the title; seeing posts such as "Not PC exclusive -- not buying." is just silly and insulting to not only DICE as the developers but to the rest of the Battlefield gaming community.

    Having played a game such as Heroes which by its nature does not support such large scale battles as BF2 or 2142, I can safely say that I would much rather have these massive battles. Although the fighting is closer and therefore makes the action seem as intense, the variety of combat itself is limited by virtue of you having a much higher chance of running into the same enemy time and time again. Additionally, less equipment can be fielded at any one given time, thereby reducing each person's potential role by an additional factor. The above statements were not based on mere inferences; no, they are based on actual playtime in situations which are similar to those found here.

    Leave a comment:


  • dikinher
    replied
    Re: DICE Could Have Made a Great BF3

    Originally posted by DontKnockIt225
    Why is BF:BC2 not a modern combat follow up of BF2? There a screenshot on EA website of BC2 which looks very similar to BF2. Its got helicopters in the screen aswell. If this is not a BF2 follow up then what is? Or does it have to be exclusively for pc for it to be a follow up?

    You people know almost nothing about BC2 but already write it off when it is MODERN COMBAT. If you dislike it then **** off. We dont care if you dont play, i personally think its selfish for you to want a pc exclusive game and limit DICEs profits just so you feel the game is not "consolised".

    Go stand on a bridge and announce that youll never play BF1943 and BC2. I'm sure the fish and birds might, just might take an interest.
    Bad Company was presented as a comedy and that is a far cry from the seriousness of Battlefield 2. There is nothing wrong with PC exclusivity as much as consoles having theirs. A pc exclusive wouldn't limit anything. Consider the fact that BF2 sold more copies in its first year than Bad Company had sold on PS3/360 together in its first year.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wizrdwarts
    replied
    Re: DICE Could Have Made a Great BF3

    I'll accept BFBC2 as the follow up of BF2 when they announce jets and 64 man battles.

    Leave a comment:


  • DontKnockIt225
    replied
    Re: DICE Could Have Made a Great BF3

    Why is BF:BC2 not a modern combat follow up of BF2? There a screenshot on EA website of BC2 which looks very similar to BF2. Its got helicopters in the screen aswell. If this is not a BF2 follow up then what is? Or does it have to be exclusively for pc for it to be a follow up?

    You people know almost nothing about BC2 but already write it off when it is MODERN COMBAT. If you dislike it then **** off. We dont care if you dont play, i personally think its selfish for you to want a pc exclusive game and limit DICEs profits just so you feel the game is not "consolised".

    Go stand on a bridge and announce that youll never play BF1943 and BC2. I'm sure the fish and birds might, just might take an interest.

    Leave a comment:


  • RW-RogueWolf
    Guest replied
    Re: DICE Could Have Made a Great BF3

    Originally posted by Tomeis View Post
    Just say you sold "Product 1" and made $100,000 off of it and then discontinued it and created "Product 2" and only made $50,000 off of it and then you discontinued selling it. Then you decided you were going to revive one of those two products and start selling it again at the price you were originally selling it at. Which one would you choose? "Product 1", which made you $100,000 or "Product 2", which made you only $50,000?
    Okay you answered the why go back question but missed the overall point of it (or maybe you didn't, and wanted to be a smart arse :laugh

    The overall point was, businesses unless they have good cause will leave old products, dice/ea somehow thought BF2 was worth the trouble at this point in time ($$$) , but the 2 year gap was because they didn't see any point, they wanted to focus their attention on BF2142 & bad company amongst other things, which is where my point was going....

    Leave a comment:


  • Wizrdwarts
    replied
    Re: DICE Could Have Made a Great BF3

    Originally posted by iQu'e View Post
    Yes there is, the korean game isn't developed by DICE, EA just started a new studio in Korea where it will be developed. I think it was called Neowiz? or something like that
    Korean game refers to the Korean style-business they're doing, not BF:Korea, so that's all of them right there.

    Leave a comment:


  • jesus
    replied
    Re: DICE Could Have Made a Great BF3

    Originally posted by iQu'e View Post
    Yes there is, the korean game isn't developed by DICE, EA just started a new studio in Korea where it will be developed. I think it was called Neowiz? or something like that

    People are getting way to fixated with that "list" though. It was released in what - august? - and people are following it blindly. Who's to say DICE haven't changed their mind, or have started development on another game in that time.
    No, the game was included in the list but your last bit on them changing their mind wouldn't surprise me one bit as DICE and EA seem to never be sure about anything.

    http://blog.wired.com/games/2008/06/...s-working.html

    Leave a comment:


  • iQue
    replied
    Re: DICE Could Have Made a Great BF3

    Originally posted by Tomeis View Post
    The list is now BF:BC2, BF:Heroes, BF:BC, BF1943 and the Korean game. No more titles left in the list.
    Yes there is, the korean game isn't developed by DICE, EA just started a new studio in Korea where it will be developed. I think it was called Neowiz? or something like that

    People are getting way to fixated with that "list" though. It was released in what - august? - and people are following it blindly. Who's to say DICE haven't changed their mind, or have started development on another game in that time.

    Leave a comment:


  • jesus
    replied
    Re: DICE Could Have Made a Great BF3

    Originally posted by Churp View Post
    So wait people are mad at DICE because they promised this year as the "great year 2009" and so far people think things don't seem that great? Well the year just started, DICE has reveled 2 of their 5 titles, and trust me I know DICE will have much more out for their fans and I KNOW that this year will be amazing.
    BF1943 and BF:BC2 are the final 2 titles in the list of five BF games in the works. When DICE first revealed the list they said they were working on BF:BC, BF:Heroes, a BF game aimed at the Korean market, another BF console game and then an unnamed BF game. The list is now BF:BC2, BF:Heroes, BF:BC, BF1943 and the Korean game. No more titles left in the list.

    Originally posted by [3MIB]Y|Rec.TheGameArtist
    I understand your irritation, but BF2 isn't the only game in the series and BF2 players arnt the only ones that exist, its the way a cycle goes, bf2142 will get the better of the draw because its there newest game, why would they revert back to an old game in their series?
    Just say you sold "Product 1" and made $100,000 off of it and then discontinued it and created "Product 2" and only made $50,000 off of it and then you discontinued selling it. Then you decided you were going to revive one of those two products and start selling it again at the price you were originally selling it at. Which one would you choose? "Product 1", which made you $100,000 or "Product 2", which made you only $50,000?

    Leave a comment:


  • needitfast
    replied
    Re: DICE Could Have Made a Great BF3

    I don't consider bf2142 as a bf2 follow-up. you do, that's the difference in our argumentation. In my mind these two games are coexistant.
    2142 never had as much players as bf2, even directly after the release of 2142. and that's for a reason:
    because this game was not what the majority of players wanted. In general i have no problem with 2142, if you like it, play it.
    But it was the same thing as now with 1943 - it's an offset, a different game and it was never intended to be a sequel.

    anyways, my point complaining is, that i want a clear statement where the franchise is heading on PC - will there be a new battlefield for PC in a forseeable time (maybe 2010) or should BFBC2 be it - that's all.
    If i would get a clear answer on this question and not a "we are working on something" everything would be fine.
    If BFBC2 should be THE followup, I'll stop complaining and will disappear. It could be so easy. But as long as this word is not spoken i'll complain, cause it's not too late.
    If i wouldn't raise my voice, nothing will happen - that's the point.

    Originally posted by Minmaster
    such attitude of attachment to BF2 and not being open to anything else might just be one of the reasons why PC isn't getting a true BF anytime soon. they're probably afraid if it's not modern warfare game, then it will be rejected by many like 2142 but maybe they don't feel like modern combat again so soon. but there's more to BF than BF2, this attitude of modern combat or nothing is starting to get ridiculous. they are now just going back to WWII setting, what makes you think they need to give you a modern combat BF game again so quick? if it is so outdated and isn't good, then what are the 20k players doing? imo, dice isn't in such a rush to make BF3 because so many people are still playing BF2. and if they try another war setting, you BF2 fanboys will reject it.
    Yes they got back to WWII and i would have no problem with that, if 1943 would be a full scale remake, with all _popular_ maps and some new, 64players or more, all known classes, dedicated server files, server browser, demo recording, first person death cam, squad-system and so on. But it's not. I would play it, even it is not what i've expected, but i won't buy a download only game. So it is not my game and i wish you tons of fun playing it.

    Next thing is, i'm not a BF2 Fanboy - if you think so, you got me wrong. DICE made many mistakes with BF2 and i just play it because there is nothing closer to BF1942/DC than BF2.
    I don't play BF1942/DC anymore cause the competitive scene headed towards BF2 - also most players.

    You insinuate me, that i want a new modern combat sequel of BF2 - i don't.
    So stop supposing what I want, you don't have a clue.
    When did i say "modern combat or nothing" ? Quote me pls!

    Leave a comment:


  • Minmaster
    replied
    Re: DICE Could Have Made a Great BF3

    Originally posted by needitfast View Post
    i'm talking about bf2, a game that is played way more often and has much more problems than 2142.

    ok you're right that YOU got updates for 2142 - a game that is played by a minority of the bf community. "WE got updates" is wrong, I, and those other 20k bf2 players don't. 4times more players play bf2 than 2142. Is that the reason why 2142 got patched and bf2 don't?

    They just have promised a patch 8 month ago, and i'm really looking forward to the great laugh i will have about it's content if it will be released. 8 month.... it should be a massive update, but i don't believe in that.
    such attitude of attachment to BF2 and not being open to anything else might just be one of the reasons why PC isn't getting a true BF anytime soon. they're probably afraid if it's not modern warfare game, then it will be rejected by many like 2142 but maybe they don't feel like modern combat again so soon. but there's more to BF than BF2, this attitude of modern combat or nothing is starting to get ridiculous. they are now just going back to WWII setting, what makes you think they need to give you a modern combat BF game again so quick? if it is so outdated and isn't good, then what are the 20k players doing? imo, dice isn't in such a rush to make BF3 because so many people are still playing BF2. and if they try another war setting, you BF2 fanboys will reject it.

    Leave a comment:


  • RW-RogueWolf
    Guest replied
    Re: DICE Could Have Made a Great BF3

    Originally posted by needitfast View Post
    i'm talking about bf2, a game that is played way more often and has much more problems than 2142.

    ok you're right that YOU got updates for 2142 - a game that is played by a minority of the bf community. "WE got updates" is wrong, I, and those other 20k bf2 players don't. 4times more players play bf2 than 2142. Is that the reason why 2142 got patched and bf2 don't?

    They just have promised a patch 8 month ago, and i'm really looking forward to the great laugh i will have about it's content if it will be released. 8 month.... it should be a massive update, but i don't believe in that.
    I understand your irritation, but BF2 isn't the only game in the series and BF2 players arnt the only ones that exist, its the way a cycle goes, bf2142 will get the better of the draw because its there newest game, why would they revert back to an old game in their series?

    Do you see BF1942 getting any new updates? Do you see anyone complaining about that, no, because that fan base knows its out of date, its time for the BF2 community to come to terms with that, BF2 is old news despite the amount of players.

    COD 2, still the best cod game in my opinion, its old news though so i dont expect any more patches for it, i enjoy what i have, its time for the BF2 community to do the same, better yet, dice/ea are giving BF2 a new patch.

    I personally find it hard to understand the complaining, is it because you've had to wait? If so you have to look at it that, at least your getting something for an old game, your lucky, companies dont update old games often, so thank your stars dice/ea still care about BF2 players to give them something new, which contradicts one of your previous statements that Dice/Ea dont care about its fan base, if they didn't care they wouldn't bother.

    Originally posted by Skaggy View Post
    I disagree.

    Most people complaining are 1942 vets who've played through the rest of the Battlefield series looking for that same sense of epicness that the first game had. Given that BF2 was the closest on the epicness scale than any other battlefield game, that was the one they settled on and played extensively. (Hence your term Battlefield 2 whores).
    Excuse my poor approach to that, (whores) should say Devoted players instead, i am sorry for that.

    But i may be mistaken but that was a contradiction to your point, you say 1942 vets who now play BF2, so therefore if im correct that makes them devoted BF2 players, making my point valid that the majority of the complaints come from the battlfield 2 community?

    I could be wrong, but the spin on it is, they've now settled with BF2 so that makes them BF2 devoted players, who are now only concerned with BF2 and no other game in the series including 1942.

    Leave a comment:


  • needitfast
    replied
    Re: DICE Could Have Made a Great BF3

    Originally posted by Skaggy View Post
    Most people complaining are 1942 vets who've played through the rest of the Battlefield series looking for that same sense of epicness that the first game had. Given that BF2 was the closest on the epicness scale than any other battlefield game, that was the one they settled on and played extensively. (Hence your term Battlefield 2 whores).
    /signed

    Leave a comment:


  • Skaggy
    replied
    Re: DICE Could Have Made a Great BF3

    Originally posted by TheGameArtist
    Everybody thats complaining are Battlefield 2 whores, they don't count any other battlefield game for some strange reason...
    I disagree.

    Most people complaining are 1942 vets who've played through the rest of the Battlefield series looking for that same sense of epicness that the first game had. Given that BF2 was the closest on the epicness scale than any other battlefield game, that was the one they settled on and played extensively. (Hence your term Battlefield 2 whores).

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X