Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2014 21:47:29 GMT -5
www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-06-24-dice-ponders-what-did-people-really-like-about-battlefield-bad-companyIn a Eurogamer article published on June 24 head of Dice Karl-Magnus Troedsson explains that they 'have no idea why gamers liked Battlefield Bad Company 2'. Long story short the theories Troedson had were -We didn't half-ass the single-player or the mutiplayer. The MP controlled well and the SP had humourous and decently drawn-out characters. -We have gamers who say they wanted BFBC3 over BF:HL, but could never really point out why BFBC2 was as good as they claimed. -Maybe kinda we'll cross that bridge when we get there perhaps we'll make BFBC3/BF5/BF2143 depending if we might possibly could likely potentially want to eventually no guarantees. It's probably nebulous mayhaps. As a response to the article a YouTuber that specializes in Battlefield gameplay gave out his two cents. Matimi0 doesn't exactly have a golden radio voice, so I'll paraphrase. [0:27] The very nature of this article is odd; you'd think the professionals making the game would know exactly why people liked/hated the game they made. [0:57] "The series was innovative and brought a breathe of fresh air into the FPS scene." [1:10] The destruction mechanic. This was new and made for interesting gameplay not seen in any other FPS franchise. [1:32] There was already a fanbase for Battlefield before Bad Company came out [BF 1942, BF Vietnam, BF2, BF 2142], but for most Battlefield fans it was their first Battlefield game. Because it was their first they will be biased and look back at it fondly because of nostalgia. [1:50] With Call of Duty being a smash hit at the time there was certainly a market for FPS on console; BFBC2 could only benefit from it. [2:04] Good map design. No specific details were given but Matimi0 did say that Rush was an original and interesting gametype made even better by maps designed for those game types. He believed in this enough to mention it twice, saying it was 'the best map design in the industry'. [3:14] Battlefield isn't as bloated; class roles didn't overlap as much because certain parts of each kit were fixed. Everyone was literally dealing with apples and oranges; it created a dynamic where players had to work together to win. [4:44] There were fewer things in the game, and thus was easier to balance. That, and it reduced a lot of random deaths to things placed in the game for gimmicks- dying to mortars, UCAVs, M320, high value targeting, millions of different RPGs is frustrating in newer Battlefield titles. There are many ways to die in this game, and there are more ways to die from things that you simply could not prepare for. This happened in BFBC2 with the infamous Gustav, but it was nowhere near as bad as BF3/BF4. [7:05] Gunplay. Hardly any of the weapons in this game were crap. Every kit had decent weapons in them. [8:30] I'm aware I probably haven't covered everything (like single player). Personally I think the humourous characters were a keystone to what would've otherwise been an average forgettable single-player campaign. There's only so much you can do when you have to fit in a firefight every 5 minutes, and taking down choppers with unguided missiles can be brutal if you don't know what you're doing. In my case taking down 2 with a bad checkpoint can warrant a ragequit. Come to think of it, it might be memorable because nobody else has gone down this route. No, really. I looked up "Sam Fisher smiling" and this is the closest I got. This is the happiest he will ever be. Thanks Ubisoft. I'm surprised nobody mentioned the BF:Vietnam DLC. Dice/EA could have made that into its own separate game, but they didn't. As a result they made one of the best DLCs of all time for the time. It's possible that the relatively low resolution for consoles affected BFBC2's potential on the console. 560p might put a damper on a game where players can snipe each other with an automatic weapon from over a hundred meters/yards away. Unfortunately I can't really speak from experience since most of my time with BFBC2 was on PC. What do you guys think? Also, does anyone have any idea why Matimi0 thinks map design was so good in BFBC2? I have no idea what to make of that.
|
|
Den
He's That Guy
Posts: 4,294,967,295
|
Post by Den on Jul 7, 2014 0:31:02 GMT -5
BC2's map design was ideal: Most maps had three control points, meaning there were fewer points of contention, there would be constant battle in or near a flag or actual conflict between points. The whole of most maps' real estate had content. Often very useful vantage points and ambush spots that aren't right on top of a flag. The Rush gametype layouts were often narrow and focused, but there were no awful chokepoints like there are in most BF3 maps. NO PLANES.
In comparison, every other BF had a lot of empty and/or tactically worthless space between control points. All that worthless space... just so they can have more landmass for planes to not pass the whole map in five seconds. Most maps had as many as seven or more control points, making for aimless non-conflict in which the players are better off avoiding one another than fighting over territory.
Planes do not work and have not ever worked in BF. They demand many unique map design choices that take away from the foot, ground vehicle and helicopter gameplay. Unless you have a landmass the size of an ARMA map (or at least a Planetside map), planes do not work... especially when there is only one or two planes on the map at any given time that causes a group of players to squat on the airstrip for their "turn".
Too many flags do not work. They destroy cohesion and make flag capturing a reactionary task with no benefit to be had in defense. Planes and too many flags are two elements of bloat that ruin the overall design of the game. They don't fit in.
-
BC2's Class design was also the most balanced the Battlefield brand had ever seen. The only one out of all of them in which the Medic was not the dominant presence in each match; the Assault and Engineer were both equally effective thanks to the assortment of gadgets and primary weapons. Their roles and tools remained useful much more often as opposed to being situational and essentially making some classes inert.
Assault having the assault rifle, grenades and regenerating ammo would seem like a nightmare, but it worked. Engineer had typical all-vehicle utility and a carbine that wasn't actually just a crappy weaker assault rifle. Unlike all of the other BFs, Medic did not have the weapon type that was vastly superior to the others, nor did he have extra utility on top of the medical tools. The LMGs were powerful, but they had little else to them. In regards to medical tools, the other classes were not at the mercy of the Medic being the only one with regenerating health.
Of course, even majority uselessness still doesn't stop the bulk of useless "snipers" from showing up in wookie costumes.
-
Also, the only game in the series where the shot - at least the first one - goes where you point the weapon? The projectile isn't subject to wild inaccuracy that can cause a missed shot at 50m even with dead on sights while at rest? What a concept! It's almost like people like to have control of what the hell they're doing.
Bad Company 2 did things right INCIDENTALLY. Cutting out planes and making tighter maps likely because of consoles caused the design formula that worked. But nope, go right back to the awful messy Battlefield 2 design because that's what the vocal hardcore minority keep screaming about.
In short: >Because no planes >Because 3 Control Points only
|
|
|
Post by volgon on Jul 7, 2014 3:06:40 GMT -5
+1 to pretty much everything. I hate the spread system they have in the latest Battlefields, so little control between large spread AND projectile weapons. Makes things so unintuitive and frustrating mechanically. As for the classes, I'd say they were mostly balanced MW2 style. It wasn't really "balanced", but 3 of the 4 classes had something pretty retarded. It took them forever to fix the pre-nerf, M60 toting Rambo Medic of Obliteration. Don't forget the Engineer with his sniper rifle accuracy Gustav powered by Danger Close.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2014 4:46:18 GMT -5
Perhaps a dose of nostalgia is clouding my memory but I recall destruction having a far more significant presence in BC2 over BF3 and BF4. People have mentioned that BF4 has a more "BC2" like approach to its destruction but after playing BF4 for a bit again recently after dropping it almost immediately after launch... I still don't really know what people are talking about.
I've never thought that BF's infantry gameplay has ever felt all that enjoyable but BC2's destruction alleviated that aspect of BF for me and provided something different over a majority of the other FPS games that I play. BF4 (and to a degree BF3 I suppose) seems more intent on pushing gimmicky shit like "Levelolution", which for the most part, has no real significant or meaningful impact on gameplay. I remember when everyone was shitting their pants over that Siege of Shanghai skyscraper collapse only to find out that it usually gets blown up a minute or two into a Conquest game and then turns the entire map into a grey tinted shitfest.
|
|
|
Post by didjeridu on Jul 7, 2014 16:28:07 GMT -5
For me, BC2 was good for two reasons.
First, it actually put effort into Rush. In BF4 (and to a lesser extent BF3) Rush is just an afterthought. Combine the mediocre to terrible maps, the 64p obsession, and the low ticket count for Ranked, and it just isn't fun anymore. You either steamroll the enemy, or they steamroll you. To be fair I didn't like how in BC2 you could destroy buildings to destroy MCOMs (way too easy with MBT/IFV sniping), but I'd take it if it means having decent maps.
Second, the gun damage in BC2 was perfect. The TTK was not too fast or too slow. You could still pepper people across the map easily, but they still had a chance to escape. In 1v1 situations you still had a chance to fight back against people with bad aim, and in general just having slightly longer firefights makes playing more fun. Also with damage not locked to caliber, you can have more weapon variety.
Other than that there's nothing that great about it. The soldier/gun customization is really shallow, player movement was stiff and clunky, no prone, hit detection was terrible for a long time, Gustavs were ridiculous, knifing was too easy, Magnum/Armor, etc, etc. It was fun at the time but BF3/BF4 has made improvements in too many areas. If they more or less keep the current engine/mechanics, add in the goofy singleplayer, and focus more on Rush, then I'd be all for BC3.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Jul 9, 2014 8:41:14 GMT -5
If I weren't so lazy, I would attempt to analyze every single detail of this game and MW2 to glean awareness of what makes an FPS great. And I don't mean to say that many things haven't been written already, surely we've spoken a thousand times in lengthy posts about what makes these things great in innumerable qualities.
What I mean is that, for my purposes, I would like us, the smarter-than-your-average-consumer, to go to great pains to make an unshakable and unstoppable paper of massive proportions of the rightly-ordered designs in these beloved fan-favorite games that have caused so much passion, since developers have such a gosh darn golly gee whiz hard time seeing why this stuff happens. How the heck would we start that sort of project, do we have the resources and cooperative ability to do bring our unique insight to the forefront of criticizing modern game design?
It's difficult to attempt to distill it down to one quality or another, but I believe it's there. It is most likely that balance and proper division of labour between classes/weapons create a large amount of viable and emergent playstyles. As many on the Dan Kiron form bords would agree, explosives, knifing, LMGs, shotties, etc. suck on some ginormous wieners in a lot of shooters nowadays, and the over-concern of people getting mad at 'cheese' has certainly decreased the amount developers would want to specialize classes, oddly necessarily making the more traditional weapons far more versatile and therefore making the other choices irrelevant through being outclassed. Many characteristics of the shooting mechanics at large also suck, for because of the fear of every weapon having a powerful niche, the power of weapons and the ability of the individual to do well with all weapons is hampered, hence the slower paces, hence less damage, less accuracy, more cone of fire.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2014 13:21:49 GMT -5
So capping a flag in 3-flag conquest makes it more likely that the enemy is going to come for it- thus bringing about a stronger incentive for players to defend. Okay; that works. However, I am concerned that that might change in 64-player matches. With around 10 players from each team swarming each point things can will probably get clustered really fast; I imagine it would be sensible to put down an extra flag or two in that situation.
|
|
|
Post by volgon on Jul 9, 2014 13:50:53 GMT -5
So capping a flag in 3-flag conquest makes it more likely that the enemy is going to come for it- thus bringing about a stronger incentive for players to defend. Okay; that works. However, I am concerned that that might change in 64-player matches. With around 10 players from each team swarming each point things can will probably get clustered really fast; I imagine it would be sensible to put down an extra flag or two in that situation. In the context of BFBC2 the statement is true because the servers maxed out at 32 people.
|
|
wings
True Bro
Posts: 3,776
|
Post by wings on Jul 9, 2014 16:58:41 GMT -5
For those with BC2, how good are the numbers to get a game? Might buy it.
|
|
Den
He's That Guy
Posts: 4,294,967,295
|
Post by Den on Jul 9, 2014 17:45:27 GMT -5
Just checked the server list and BC2 still has a good number of full 32/32 and 24/24 servers on PC at the moment.
|
|
wings
True Bro
Posts: 3,776
|
Post by wings on Jul 9, 2014 17:59:54 GMT -5
Oh I should have stated that I am on Xbox but I can't imagine a discrepency where platform would be an issue here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2014 20:14:45 GMT -5
In the context of BFBC2 the statement is true because the servers maxed out at 32 people. 64-player matches (in BF3/BF4); my bad. EDIT: Actually, no. I won't admit fault here; I blame Truckasaurus Rex.
|
|
prioc
True Bro
eep
Posts: 235
|
Post by prioc on Jul 10, 2014 15:21:01 GMT -5
Oh I should have stated that I am on Xbox but I can't imagine a discrepency where platform would be an issue here. the last time I played on 360 was around 9 months ago and it was pretty hard to find a full game. I don't really remember exactly how populated it was, but I'll check again soon. I am planning on buying it on PC again but I need more hard drive space
|
|
wings
True Bro
Posts: 3,776
|
Post by wings on Jul 10, 2014 17:37:25 GMT -5
Oh I should have stated that I am on Xbox but I can't imagine a discrepency where platform would be an issue here. the last time I played on 360 was around 9 months ago and it was pretty hard to find a full game. I don't really remember exactly how populated it was, but I'll check again soon. I am planning on buying it on PC again but I need more hard drive space Oh I don't mind not getting full games all the time, just not like 2 players in a lobby. I am thinking about occasionally playing older edition of shooters and cutting back on purchasing titles so soon after release unless I play them a bucket load. Sometimes I guess matchmaking might not be with it because I tried getting a simple game of TDM on Medal of Honor (2010) ages ago and couldn't find a decent populated game on a Saturday. Yesterday I found a game fast enough on Bulletstorm so I would expect Bad Company 2 to do better since it is more popular. If BC2 is popular enough on XBL I would probably buy it. I assume EA scraped those online codes for multiplayer games outright.
|
|
Will
True Bro
K/D below 1.0
Posts: 1,309
|
Post by Will on Jul 16, 2014 13:54:45 GMT -5
Maps were designed for Rush. This is the perfect summary of why BC2 was the best.
You see in in BF3 as well: There are only 2 maps designed for Rush: Metro and Damavand Peak. Surprisingly, these are easily two of the best maps in BF3.
Rush mode needs a linear map that extends longer each time you blow up the MCOMs. It needs to take you beyond the confines of the Conquest version of maps.
|
|
Usagi
True Bro
Grin and Barrett
Posts: 1,674
|
Post by Usagi on Jul 16, 2014 16:43:18 GMT -5
BC2 and Vietnam were the only Bf games that I liked. I played Rush exclusively and it was shite in BF3 which is probably why I didn't like it. I agree with your reasons Den. Vietnam was my favorite because the MAC10 was fucking awesome.
|
|
|
Post by SheWolf on Sept 27, 2014 13:29:32 GMT -5
for me, it was that the netcode wasn't crap yet. if i went around a corner, i was save. when i try that nonsense in bf3/4, i take damage another solid two or three seconds after ducking for cover. tne sniper plague was there, but not as bad as in later bfs. maybe it had something to do with the inability to prone. there was plenty of useless non-team playing wookies, but i always found it to be even worse in later titles.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2014 16:43:58 GMT -5
Does tick rate have anything to do with the laggyness? IIRC BF4's was 10 Hz back in Jan 2014. That's kind of abysmal.
|
|
wings
True Bro
Posts: 3,776
|
Post by wings on Oct 1, 2014 17:53:03 GMT -5
It's free on XBL atm.
|
|