EA Looking For FPS Crown

[troybob]

Re: EA Looking For FPS Crown

I would say that it was Dice that made MP infantry combat mainstream with the BF series.

Excuse me?

Ever heard of Counter Strike?

[Chris_Redfield]

Re: EA Looking For FPS Crown

Troybob, whats Counter Strike? :P (BF players hate it with a passion, from what Ive seen around here)

Speaking of maps, no way are BF maps better than COD ones. SWAT4, COD4 (havent played other CODs, sorry) and CS level design is so ahead of every other FPS, its not even a contest.

[Stev0esque]

Re: EA Looking For FPS Crown

I don't know, if this doesnt completely ignore the PC gaming community, we hopefully are out of the slump untill the next gen consoles come out.

[Vreki]

Re: EA Looking For FPS Crown

Excuse me?

Ever heard of Counter Strike?

No, whats that?

Ok. I will admit I complety forgot about that. I never liked it anyway :)

[troybob]

Re: EA Looking For FPS Crown

Troybob, whats Counter Strike? :P (BF players hate it with a passion, from what Ive seen around here)

I complety forgot about that. I never liked it anyway :)

Well I hate it now too (being a BF player). But when it was first released it caught fire and multiplayer FPS exploded. CS is the reason BF1942 was big.

It's also the whole dam reason most "hardcore BF players" never heard of codename eagle (released by DICE before CS blew up).

FPS on multiplayer was a natural evolution for video games that would have happened without Counter-strike. But counter-strike grew to the point that all of a sudden people were intrigued about the capabilities of an online FPS game. So CS pushed the natural realization that online FPS was fun. It did it quickly too.

Thus the second title DICE put out is BF1942 and that's when we realized how much crap counter-strike really is. CS gave the FPS industry multiplayer dreams. BF1942 just took them to the next stage.

[Minmaster]

Re: EA Looking For FPS Crown

bah infantry combat was well on the scene even before CS. i was playing rainbow six 24/7 and a lot of Q3 and UT mods that were infantry based before CS blew up mainstream.

but to say BF made infantry fps genre what it is today is totally untrue. BF was successful at a niche market among fps games but when you only look at the infantry vs infantry aspects of the game, it's clear it is not the game's strong suit.

[Chris_Redfield]

Re: EA Looking For FPS Crown

Thus the second title DICE put out is BF1942 and that's when we realized how much crap counter-strike really is. CS gave the FPS industry multiplayer dreams. BF1942 just took them to the next stage.

I was kidding, I know what CS is. I also disagree with you on the bolded part. Counter Strike still is one of the most brilliant FPS created. Its simple, yet complex (in large scheme of things) monetary system. Weapon/sides balance, the brilliant level design which almost no game has yet beaten (although some have emulated successfully).

People see CS as a bland FPS game with limited to no options, whereas most who have played it to a great extent or at least follow its competitive scene know that in its simplicity, the brilliance shows itsself. Its where player vs player atmosphere truly shines and you see some of the most innovative and genius tactics created, which just happen to be not exploits like in BF franchise.

Theres a reason why CS is still the most played MP FPS on the PC, and its because it directly rewards skill and intellect (or FPS-awareness, if you will) without using limitations to make the game "newbie"-friendly or "easily accessible".

People dont like to hear this around these forums, but the truth is that Counter Strike on paper is a better game than any of the BF games, simply because of the effort put in by the developers and their vastly superior knowledge and prediction on how the game is played. Ever since BF2 was released (which is when I really joined BF players ranks), every patch dealt with glitches, rather than the issues with games stability, bugs and perfomance. Which is why BF2 1.5 runs with less FPS than BF2 1.0.

[troybob]

Re: EA Looking For FPS Crown

Ok first things first. You're off my christmas card list. Saying CS is better than BF just evil. Why don't you kick my dog while you're at it.

On a serious note:

The argument is coke vs. pepsi and relies heavily on opinion. While you can talk about factual difference between the games, those differences might be good or bad depending on the eye of the beholder. Here's my 2 cents:

CS was great in its day. The tactics and diversity involved was awesome. Buying equipment was genius and the different play modes added a sense of variety. Also the maps were great.

But I think it's continued success lies not only with listening to the core community, but the ability to customize the game based on your server/clan likings. This was great at first. But things got out of hand and now I can't find a vanilla CS server to save my life. But I digress.

CS as a title was not evolutionary in my opinion (though it was revolutionary). CS became evolutionary because of the market style of the developer and its open nature. The way CS was played and the way it was supported made it evolutionary.

Now fast forward to BF1942. That was evolutionary as a title. To show someone the game and say "nothing is computer controlled" was a huge step in the FPS industry. Artillery was controlled by skilled humans working in coordination with spotters (or clouds), tank columns roamed the open desert while Stukas patrolled the skies. It was a turning point in my gaming life. I never wanted to go back to CS again.

Additionally, the patches weren't half bad for 1942 and added a bunch of free content. They even allowed development of mods like DC (my fav of course). Why DICE took 5 steps backwards with the next titles I have no idea.

[jesus]

Re: EA Looking For FPS Crown

Speaking of maps, no way are BF maps better than COD ones.

I didn't know COD maps had to support ground, air, and marine vehicles.

[Chris_Redfield]

Re: EA Looking For FPS Crown

Ok first things first. You're off my christmas card list. Saying CS is better than BF just evil. Why don't you kick my dog while you're at it.

The argument is coke vs. pepsi and relies heavily on opinion. While you can talk about factual difference between the games, those differences might be good or bad depending on the eye of the beholder. Here's my 2 cents:

Im not trying to tell everyone that CS is a much more "fun" game. That is indeed purely an opinion and cant be argued over. Im talking about the quality of the game, in all of its aspects, the longetivity, the support for both pub and competitive play. CS is a much more complete package, its almost a perfect game. Now whether you like the game or not is a completely irrelevant discussion because that would be a matter of opinion :P

CS is not in my TOP10 favourite games list, but I really do appreciate it for what it is.

But I think it's continued success lies not only with listening to the core community, but the ability to customize the game based on your server/clan likings. This was great at first. But things got out of hand and now I can't find a vanilla CS server to save my life. But I digress.

Theres obviously a market for it. People like that. I see where youre coming from, but this is not affecting the game as the "market" will soon correct itsself if the demand for vanilla gameplay warrants it. Besides, CS 1.6 still has plenty of vanilla servers and most CS players actually prefer that old, rudimentary one

CS as a title was not evolutionary in my opinion (though it was revolutionary). CS became evolutionary because of the market style of the developer and its open nature. The way CS was played and the way it was supported made it evolutionary.

I agree. Half Life wasnt revolutionary, but what it did was combine all successful elements of an FPS and make them all work perfectly. Its one of those games that doesnt push the envelope, but it delivers such fun and complexity through simplicity with an icing of high polish, that people realize that this is exactly that they wanted all along.

CS is the same. You dont have to make the game extremely complex. It just has to work perfectly.

Additionally, the patches weren't half bad for 1942 and added a bunch of free content. They even allowed development of mods like DC (my fav of course). Why DICE took 5 steps backwards with the next titles I have no idea.

But 1942 is competitively dead and CS isnt. Which brings us back to which is a "better" game. Not in ones opinion, but purely from a cold and pragmatic, analytical standpoint.

And Tomeis, just because a map has more, doesnt mean its better. MW2 has more and they are getting bombarded with flames on IW forums. Level design is one of the biggest artforms in multiplayer gaming.

[jesus]

Re: EA Looking For FPS Crown

And Tomeis, just because a map has more, doesnt mean its better. MW2 has more and they are getting bombarded with flames on IW forums. Level design is one of the biggest artforms in multiplayer gaming.

How can you even compare BF2 maps and CoD4/CS maps? They're designed for completely different things. Sure, CoD4 maps can be more balanced, but that's because you don't have to deal with all sorts of variables.

It would be fairer to compare BF2 maps to BF1942 or BF2142 or other games with big maps and a variety of different vehicles.

[Minmaster]

Re: EA Looking For FPS Crown

yea you can't really compare them. apples to oranges.

BF maps are like 100x bigger than COD maps and also have to cater to vehicles being driven in them.

you can't really compare BF maps to any other FPS games for that matter.

[Chris_Redfield]

Re: EA Looking For FPS Crown

yea you can't really compare them. apples to oranges.

BF maps are like 100x bigger than COD maps and also have to cater to vehicles being driven in them.

you can't really compare BF maps to any other FPS games for that matter.

Yes you can, easily. Take the most popular CS and COD4 maps as an example. They are brilliantly built, very well balanced, funnel the action into strategic locations while still providing enough room to maneuver around. Every detail on those maps is set there with a specific purpose in mind, and the gameplay itsself compliments the maps so you dont have BS like Wake Island in BF2. Almost every map in BF2 is inbalanced, either because of flag positions, vehicle spawns, vehicles or weapons on both sides.

The size has absolutely no importance. Its all about the polish, foresight and creating maps with specific goals and intentions in mind.

Even the most balanced maps (Mastuur 16p, Oman 32p, Dragon 16p) are still inbalanced because of the inbalance in vehicles and weapons.

And even though I enjoyed BF2 a lot more than I did COD4, I can still appreciate COD4 technical superiority to most FPS games.

Having spent so much time on TBF2 dissecting BF2 and seeing nothing but problems, its humbling, amazing and inspiring to see such meticulous attention to details in some of the games these days :)

[Sebastian]

Re: EA Looking For FPS Crown

http://www.spike.com/event/vga2009/page/world-premieres?video=3305002&epIndex=&viewOption=

trailer