Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
edited January 2008
<!--quoteo(post=1668593:date=Jan 28 2008, 02:03 AM:name=Haze)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Haze @ Jan 28 2008, 02:03 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1668593"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Also, the jump from BF1942 to BF2 was a bit bigger in terms of ideas expanded upon than what you listed Kouji. New commander mode (artillery, waypoints, UAVs, supply drops) new squad interface (waypoints, new spawn system, helped to encourage cooperative play), additional weapons for classes to choose from, as well as ironsights and several more weapons added into the game that greatly differed from each other as opposed to the original where every weapon was essentially a carbon copy of your opponents. Not to mention classes reworked, and helicopters.
BF2 differed just enough from BF1942 to warrant the additional purpose of another game entirely, rather than a free patch. The game didn't need to be drastically different. When people go to buy a battlefield game, for the most part they want the original gameplay intact. Just because it doesn't seem like a whole other game isn't a bad thing.
I'm quite sure BFH will be fun to the audience that Battlefield games have attracted in the past, and won't be a carbon copy of Battlefield 2.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, but the nutshell wasn't big enough for all that!!!
I was wrong I know, I know! BF2 added a lot of different things, but also a lot of thing that made me wish for the old school game interface. Maybe my dislike for BF2 adds to that cause <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
Not sure what you mean with the last part though, BFH as in Forgotten Hope 1? Well that mod actualy added about 5 times more content to the original game and added "realism" and historic accuracy into the equision. As in ya cant kill a Tiger with a sherman on the front or with grenades kind of stuff. Or find a Königstiger in a pre november 1943 map. It also made the game harder to play or learn (all the different tanks and shizzle as to what can damage what and where you have to shoot etc...) So FH is most likely not a main stream game and will probably not become a game of this sort... Something that EA doesn't like to create, because they like number of players + number of copies sold (like any company they ain't here for charity)
WAIT, but this game is free... ... ... Hmm... ... There has to be a catch! <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" />
Anyway I will probably be playing this new battlefield as well and if I like it, which could very well happen. It might even stay in my games folder...
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
<!--quoteo(post=1668609:date=Jan 28 2008, 05:46 AM:name=Haze)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Haze @ Jan 28 2008, 05:46 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1668609"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->BF = Battlefield H = Heroes
BFH = Battlefield Heroes<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Hehe ok, makes much more sense now... Hehe BFH it is from now on, well peeps we now have an official unofficial shotcut tag for the game that every game needs. Even if <a href="http://www.cityofheroes.com/" target="_blank">CoH</a> and <a href="http://www.companyofheroesgame.com/" target="_blank">CoH</a> have tag conflicts with eachother!
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
edited January 2008
<!--quoteo(post=1668613:date=Jan 28 2008, 05:55 AM:name=Haze)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Haze @ Jan 28 2008, 05:55 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1668613"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Company of Heroes owns the CoH tag, City of Heroes can go somewhere else.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> How about CoH:OF? <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
Meh it seems we are in a continuous cycle of waiting for games to release...
Left4Dead, NS2, Conan, Warhammer, Starcraft 2, World of Starcraft (:X) Duke nukem forever <!--coloro:#696969--><span style="color:#696969"><!--/coloro-->*hehe*<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> now also BFH...
And loads more, console included (not knowledgeable in that department), but I still want Mario Kart Wii...
City of Heroes was there first, Company of Heroes needs to find another acronym. Besides, City of Heroes can't change its name, it actually IS a City of Heroes. Company of Heroes would be just as accurate if it was just called Company of Soldiers.
In fact, to avoid complications, that is now its new name.
ShockehIf a packet drops on the web and nobody's near to see it...Join Date: 2002-11-19Member: 9336NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1668616:date=Jan 28 2008, 05:02 AM:name=Haze)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Haze @ Jan 28 2008, 05:02 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1668616"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->BFH, it's free. Yes.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'll hold you to that one Haze. "Micro-Transactions" remember? I'll bet you £10 here and now that it will be impossible to play the game well against someone who 'indulges' because that's the business model.
<i>"Oh, you *can* play without giving us your money. Just you'll be the crippled fat kid who gets picked last."</i>
I basically concur completely with DiscoZombie. The problem isn't whether it came first, or whether it's enough of an innovation on earlier games to justify it. The problem could basically be summarised as EA, and I think we should promote the use of it as an adjective.
<i>"Seen that new game from Activision? It's pretty EA."</i>
<!--quoteo(post=1668572:date=Jan 27 2008, 07:48 PM:name=Thaldarin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Thaldarin @ Jan 27 2008, 07:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1668572"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I was on about the fact EA seem to think they made their idea for <b>BF Heroes and chose that particular art style before TF2</b>. *edit* because of course EA are the big all powerful beings of game making, or atleast they think so and have to try and take credit for everything.. bit in the way America does with world affairs */edit* Not that the art style hasn't ever been used earlier. Please Tycho save stupid comments for your head only.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->You seem to have read what you wanted to read, instead of what I said. I said that DICE chose the art style for BFH a year before TF2 was announced, not that they chose it before TF2 did. We have no information about when the TF2 art style was announced unless it's in the commentary or in some interview I missed, or unless THEM can help us out here.
Anyway Pixar got there first. Valve and DICE were probably just copying the same thing around the same time because of how big the Pixar films were.
Unsubstantiated rumours are that EA closed their UK Chertsey office to outsource their QA to Romania where they'll only have to pay testers £1/hour instead of £7/hour. That's at least one reason from a moral standpoint to not play this game.
On the other hand I know that the developers, DICE, aren't an evil bunch of ######s, and it would be harsh to see them punished for the mistakes of the man upstairs.
On the other hand (or back on the first hand, if you like), I do happen to agree with this analogy: <center><object width="450" height="356"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/lM6ydhufQZE"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/lM6ydhufQZE" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="450" height="356"></embed></object></center>
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
IMO cartoony can be done many different ways and neither TF2 and BFH look like pixar, but they do look like each other. My problem isn't that it looks cartoony, it's that it looks identical.
<!--quoteo(post=1668670:date=Jan 28 2008, 03:12 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Jan 28 2008, 03:12 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1668670"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->IMO cartoony can be done many different ways and neither TF2 and BFH look like pixar, but they do look like each other. My problem isn't that it looks cartoony, it's that it looks identical.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->They don't look <i>identical</i>. The BFH Soldier wears a soldier hat because that hat is an iconic soldier's hat, it's the obvious choice for a 'caricaturistic', cartoonised soldier. The BFH actually has a fairly independant style going with the sharp square jar lines that looks more like some sort of art style that I've spent the last hour trying to find on the net with no joy (maybe some form of scuptural <i>analytical cubism</i>?).
<!--quoteo(post=1668697:date=Jan 28 2008, 12:14 PM:name=Zydeco)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zydeco @ Jan 28 2008, 12:14 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1668697"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->After they announced a expansion when they had 100 open serious bugs in BF2 that took 3-4 to fix i swore to never buy a game from that series.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Except that the expansion was made by an <i>entirely different developer hundreds of miles away in a different <b>country</b></i>. And work began on Special Forces before BF2 even came out.
<!--quoteo(post=1668697:date=Jan 28 2008, 12:14 PM:name=Zydeco)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zydeco @ Jan 28 2008, 12:14 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1668697"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->After they announced a expansion when they had 100 open serious bugs in BF2 that took 3-4 to fix i swore to never buy a game from that series.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1668728:date=Jan 28 2008, 08:52 PM:name=TychoCelchuuu)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TychoCelchuuu @ Jan 28 2008, 08:52 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1668728"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Except that the expansion was made by an <i>entirely different developer hundreds of miles away in a different <b>country</b></i>. And work began on Special Forces before BF2 even came out.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then branded with the EA stamp. Which is probably why it is so crap and buggy just like the rest of the EA games.
His complaint was not just the number of bugs but the time it took to fix them. This, of course, has nothing to do with the development of the Special Forces expansion.
<!--quoteo(post=1668837:date=Jan 29 2008, 03:56 PM:name=Thaldarin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Thaldarin @ Jan 29 2008, 03:56 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1668837"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Why do you have to try and cause tension? :/<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Zydeco started it by hating on people for not doing anything wrong. He's blaming them for scheduling an expansion while there are still bugs to fix, but they <i>were</i> fixing bugs, because they're not the ones making the expansion.
<!--quoteo(post=1668853:date=Jan 29 2008, 06:08 PM:name=TychoCelchuuu)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TychoCelchuuu @ Jan 29 2008, 06:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1668853"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Zydeco started it by hating on people for not doing anything wrong. He's blaming them for scheduling an expansion while there are still bugs to fix, but they <i>were</i> fixing bugs, because they're not the ones making the expansion.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Maybe the ones making the expansion should have been helping to fix bugs?
It's just generally bad to release expansions for a broken game, whether made by the same people or not; it's bad ethics.
<!--quoteo(post=1668864:date=Jan 29 2008, 06:10 PM:name=Xyth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Xyth @ Jan 29 2008, 06:10 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1668864"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Maybe the ones making the expansion should have been helping to fix bugs?
It's just generally bad to release expansions for a broken game, whether made by the same people or not; it's bad ethics.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
BF2 wasn't "broken." I was playing it just about every day back then and it worked fine. And as for releasing an expansion when the game itself still has issues, well, Blizzard does it and nobody complains. Much.
Yeah, but Blizzard is the nice kid who smiles at you and tells you how good a friend you are and helps you with your homework (and is plotting how to get the most out of it when he inevitably stabs you in the back). EA is the rich-kid ######.
ShockehIf a packet drops on the web and nobody's near to see it...Join Date: 2002-11-19Member: 9336NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1668887:date=Jan 30 2008, 03:16 AM:name=TychoCelchuuu)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TychoCelchuuu @ Jan 30 2008, 03:16 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1668887"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->BF2 wasn't "broken." I was playing it just about every day back then and it worked fine. And as for releasing an expansion when the game itself still has issues, well, Blizzard does it and nobody complains. Much.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'd say it wasn't broken, but it was damn rickety. Interesting little 'quirks' everywhere that spoke volumes about QA. I incidentally have the exact same issues on Blizzard. If you release a product and it's incomplete, you shouldn't sell it. Gaming is pretty much the main software field to have engendered this to the public, it's just not acceptable to release half finished product with the plan to maybe fix it later, depending on whether it actually hurts sales.
Sadly, the lowest common denominator ensures they'll shift truckloads, because consumer power is minimal.
<!--quoteo(post=1668919:date=Jan 30 2008, 02:49 AM:name=Shockwave)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Shockwave @ Jan 30 2008, 02:49 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1668919"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'd say it wasn't broken, but it was damn rickety. Interesting little 'quirks' everywhere that spoke volumes about QA. I incidentally have the exact same issues on Blizzard. If you release a product and it's incomplete, you shouldn't sell it. Gaming is pretty much the main software field to have engendered this to the public, it's just not acceptable to release half finished product with the plan to maybe fix it later, depending on whether it actually hurts sales.
Sadly, the lowest common denominator ensures they'll shift truckloads, because consumer power is minimal.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Battlefield 2 was, is, and will always be an incredibly fun game. With or without the many mods that vastly increase is breadth and depth, it remains one of my favorite games of all time. We gives games like Fallout, Deus Ex, Jagged Alliance 2, STALKER, and Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines huge amounts of praise, despite their bugs. Why? Because they are awesome games, kings of their genre.
Battlefield 2 is the same. I know it's trendy, hip, and fun to beat EA around with a 2x4 because they're the big mean evil game company that loves to stick all sorts of bugs in their games just to screw with your head, but face it: a good game is a good game, and if it's got bugs, that's bad, but some of the best games of all time still have bugs right now, as we speak, and people still love them. Battlefield 2 was not "half finished." It was fun the day it came out and it is fun today, many bugfixes later. Making games is hard. Making complex games is harder. There will always be bugs, and some people (like me) are willing to accept the tradeoffs and realize that if companies are going to strike a balance between ambitious game design, fast release schedules, and new content, at some point we're going to get bugs in the game. Other people (like you) demand absolute and utter perfection in every possible category, unless you would give EA a free pass on whether or not its games are fun, as long as they're bug free.
Not everyone can make a perfect game. Valve can afford to take their time. Blizzard can afford to, but sometimes it doesn't. EA, contrary to popular belief, can't give every game in its extensive repetoire an extra 2 years of development time to iron out every little "ENEMY BOAT SPOTTED." We get a continual influx of innovative games not because every developer everywhere is forced to defeat every bug. We get them because businesses are willing to make the tradeoff, and gamers are willing to reward them by buying a game that's incredibly fun.
<!--quoteo(post=1668919:date=Jan 30 2008, 08:49 AM:name=Shockwave)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Shockwave @ Jan 30 2008, 08:49 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1668919"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'd say it wasn't broken, but it was damn rickety. Interesting little 'quirks' everywhere that spoke volumes about QA.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Working as a tester, I'd ask you to remember the key forces involved in the process:
- QA Department asks testers to record any pertinant bugs they see. This is dependant on word from the developers about what they want the focus to be on (e.g. they might not want you to bug anything on level 3 because it's broken in a certain build, they may have scheduled work on fixing some shader/lighting issues 2 weeks from now so would ask you not to bug any shader/lighting issues for the time being). It is also dependant on how good the management is at prioritising tasks and formulating checksheets designed to exploit possible weaknesses in the game design.
- Developers get all these bugs and prioritise which ones they are able to fix within their schedule. Depending on their schedule, they may waive bugs that are too minor (don't impact too seriously on the gameplay/quality) or that are actually intended facets of the design but were bugged out of ignorance (through no fault of the tester), or that simply are too difficult to fix. This is dependant on how much time the publisher is willing to give them, and also on how well managed the team is in terms of task allocation, prioritisation, initial design, adaptability, etc.
- Internal/External producers weigh up the quality of the game with how much money it is likely to take if released at a given time with how much money it is likely to cost to pay the testers and the developers before release. They tell the developers how much time they have left and advise them on what sacrifices are acceptable; what is dispensable and what is indispensable in terms of gameplay and quality. This is how levels, bosses, special abilities and weapons, etc. all get cut and how 'crunch times' are born (because developers want to make as few sacrifices to the gameplay and quality as possible).
- The publishing company, its shareholders and other financiers look at predicted sales' forecasts and running costs and may put pressure on the producers to release before a specific date (e.g. to coincide with a financial quarter or a company earnings report to boost profit margins for a specific period).
ShockehIf a packet drops on the web and nobody's near to see it...Join Date: 2002-11-19Member: 9336NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
edited January 2008
<!--quoteo(post=1668948:date=Jan 30 2008, 04:22 PM:name=TychoCelchuuu)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TychoCelchuuu @ Jan 30 2008, 04:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1668948"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Battlefield 2 was, is, and will always be an incredibly fun game. With or without the many mods that vastly increase is breadth and depth, it remains one of my favorite games of all time. We gives games like Fallout, Deus Ex, Jagged Alliance 2, STALKER, and Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines huge amounts of praise, despite their bugs. Why? Because they are awesome games, kings of their genre.
Battlefield 2 is the same. I know it's trendy, hip, and fun to beat EA around with a 2x4 because they're the big mean evil game company that loves to stick all sorts of bugs in their games just to screw with your head, but face it: a good game is a good game, and if it's got bugs, that's bad, but some of the best games of all time still have bugs right now, as we speak, and people still love them. Battlefield 2 was not "half finished." It was fun the day it came out and it is fun today, many bugfixes later. Making games is hard. Making complex games is harder. There will always be bugs, and some people (like me) are willing to accept the tradeoffs and realize that if companies are going to strike a balance between ambitious game design, fast release schedules, and new content, at some point we're going to get bugs in the game. Other people (like you) demand absolute and utter perfection in every possible category, unless you would give EA a free pass on whether or not its games are fun, as long as they're bug free.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's where we differ Tycho.
Out of your list, in fact the only one I actually liked was in fact Deus Ex. I don't give the rest huge amounts of praise. In fact I was downright damning of 2 of that list for their shortcomings (STALKER and V:tM Bloodlines)
I don't bash EA because it's hip, trendy, or plain fun, although the third point remains a distinct advantage, nor do I believe they have bugs because 'they like to screw with my head'. I bash EA because almost uniquely in industry, software has a tendancy to feel you can get away with released half completed efforts, then relying on your user base to locate and remove issues. This problem vexes me in software in general. It just so happens the gaming industry is especially prone to it, and out of that industry, EA tend to stick out above the rest in their tendancy to feel(know?) they can get away with it. When this is neatly paired with a business model that is clearly completely uninterested in the process of making games, and is in fact interested in doing precisely the amount of effort required to shift boxes, and 0% more, I get on my soapbox a little.
Do I expect perfection? Of course. You will always get the minimum required to satisfy you as a consumer. Anything else tends to either be frills to excite you for the next purchase, or was a misjudgement on that minimum.
I don't think it's purely publishers, nor do I believe that all Developers are angelic hard working individuals out to make their best game. I believe it's an endemic belief that you can 'get by', which generally wouldn't be tolerated in an awful lot of other markets.
But hey, thanks for trying to tarbrush me there with some assumptions, it was really appreciated.
If I didn't know any better, I would call their art a pretty direct ripoff of TF2. I've seen plenty of cartoony games that didn't look much like TF2. Some games I've seen which looked cartoony, but not like TF2, include Sam & Max, MediEvil, Kingdom Hearts, Katamari Damacy, Jet Set Radio, Ratchet and Clank, WoW, and others.
Even if they decided to go with a cartoony style before TF2 was announced (which is hard to swallow), they changed to 'TF2 cartoony' after TF2 was released.
Comments
BF2 differed just enough from BF1942 to warrant the additional purpose of another game entirely, rather than a free patch. The game didn't need to be drastically different. When people go to buy a battlefield game, for the most part they want the original gameplay intact. Just because it doesn't seem like a whole other game isn't a bad thing.
I'm quite sure BFH will be fun to the audience that Battlefield games have attracted in the past, and won't be a carbon copy of Battlefield 2.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, but the nutshell wasn't big enough for all that!!!
I was wrong I know, I know! BF2 added a lot of different things, but also a lot of thing that made me wish for the old school game interface. Maybe my dislike for BF2 adds to that cause <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
Not sure what you mean with the last part though, BFH as in Forgotten Hope 1? Well that mod actualy added about 5 times more content to the original game and added "realism" and historic accuracy into the equision. As in ya cant kill a Tiger with a sherman on the front or with grenades kind of stuff. Or find a Königstiger in a pre november 1943 map. It also made the game harder to play or learn (all the different tanks and shizzle as to what can damage what and where you have to shoot etc...) So FH is most likely not a main stream game and will probably not become a game of this sort... Something that EA doesn't like to create, because they like number of players + number of copies sold (like any company they ain't here for charity)
WAIT, but this game is free... ... ... Hmm... ... There has to be a catch! <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" />
Anyway I will probably be playing this new battlefield as well and if I like it, which could very well happen. It might even stay in my games folder...
H = Heroes
BFH = Battlefield Heroes
H = Heroes
BFH = Battlefield Heroes<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hehe ok, makes much more sense now... Hehe BFH it is from now on, well peeps we now have an official unofficial shotcut tag for the game that every game needs. Even if <a href="http://www.cityofheroes.com/" target="_blank">CoH</a> and <a href="http://www.companyofheroesgame.com/" target="_blank">CoH</a> have tag conflicts with eachother!
How about CoH:OF? <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
Meh it seems we are in a continuous cycle of waiting for games to release...
Left4Dead, NS2, Conan, Warhammer, Starcraft 2, World of Starcraft (:X) Duke nukem forever <!--coloro:#696969--><span style="color:#696969"><!--/coloro-->*hehe*<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> now also BFH...
And loads more, console included (not knowledgeable in that department), but I still want Mario Kart Wii...
NS2, yes.
Conan, no.
Warhammer, maybe.
World of Starcraft, what?
Duke Nukem Forever, no.
BFH, it's free. Yes.
In fact, to avoid complications, that is now its new name.
I'll hold you to that one Haze. "Micro-Transactions" remember? I'll bet you £10 here and now that it will be impossible to play the game well against someone who 'indulges' because that's the business model.
<i>"Oh, you *can* play without giving us your money. Just you'll be the crippled fat kid who gets picked last."</i>
I basically concur completely with DiscoZombie. The problem isn't whether it came first, or whether it's enough of an innovation on earlier games to justify it. The problem could basically be summarised as EA, and I think we should promote the use of it as an adjective.
<i>"Seen that new game from Activision? It's pretty EA."</i>
Anyway Pixar got there first. Valve and DICE were probably just copying the same thing around the same time because of how big the Pixar films were.
On the other hand I know that the developers, DICE, aren't an evil bunch of ######s, and it would be harsh to see them punished for the mistakes of the man upstairs.
On the other hand (or back on the first hand, if you like), I do happen to agree with this analogy:
<center><object width="450" height="356"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/lM6ydhufQZE"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/lM6ydhufQZE" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="450" height="356"></embed></object></center>
Personal politics do come into it.
Except that the expansion was made by an <i>entirely different developer hundreds of miles away in a different <b>country</b></i>. And work began on Special Forces before BF2 even came out.
Fortunate the new asking price they have now eh.
Then branded with the EA stamp. Which is probably why it is so crap and buggy just like the rest of the EA games.
Zydeco started it by hating on people for not doing anything wrong. He's blaming them for scheduling an expansion while there are still bugs to fix, but they <i>were</i> fixing bugs, because they're not the ones making the expansion.
Maybe the ones making the expansion should have been helping to fix bugs?
It's just generally bad to release expansions for a broken game, whether made by the same people or not; it's bad ethics.
It's just generally bad to release expansions for a broken game, whether made by the same people or not; it's bad ethics.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
BF2 wasn't "broken." I was playing it just about every day back then and it worked fine. And as for releasing an expansion when the game itself still has issues, well, Blizzard does it and nobody complains. Much.
I'd say it wasn't broken, but it was damn rickety. Interesting little 'quirks' everywhere that spoke volumes about QA. I incidentally have the exact same issues on Blizzard. If you release a product and it's incomplete, you shouldn't sell it. Gaming is pretty much the main software field to have engendered this to the public, it's just not acceptable to release half finished product with the plan to maybe fix it later, depending on whether it actually hurts sales.
Sadly, the lowest common denominator ensures they'll shift truckloads, because consumer power is minimal.
Sadly, the lowest common denominator ensures they'll shift truckloads, because consumer power is minimal.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Battlefield 2 was, is, and will always be an incredibly fun game. With or without the many mods that vastly increase is breadth and depth, it remains one of my favorite games of all time. We gives games like Fallout, Deus Ex, Jagged Alliance 2, STALKER, and Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines huge amounts of praise, despite their bugs. Why? Because they are awesome games, kings of their genre.
Battlefield 2 is the same. I know it's trendy, hip, and fun to beat EA around with a 2x4 because they're the big mean evil game company that loves to stick all sorts of bugs in their games just to screw with your head, but face it: a good game is a good game, and if it's got bugs, that's bad, but some of the best games of all time still have bugs right now, as we speak, and people still love them. Battlefield 2 was not "half finished." It was fun the day it came out and it is fun today, many bugfixes later. Making games is hard. Making complex games is harder. There will always be bugs, and some people (like me) are willing to accept the tradeoffs and realize that if companies are going to strike a balance between ambitious game design, fast release schedules, and new content, at some point we're going to get bugs in the game. Other people (like you) demand absolute and utter perfection in every possible category, unless you would give EA a free pass on whether or not its games are fun, as long as they're bug free.
Not everyone can make a perfect game. Valve can afford to take their time. Blizzard can afford to, but sometimes it doesn't. EA, contrary to popular belief, can't give every game in its extensive repetoire an extra 2 years of development time to iron out every little "ENEMY BOAT SPOTTED." We get a continual influx of innovative games not because every developer everywhere is forced to defeat every bug. We get them because businesses are willing to make the tradeoff, and gamers are willing to reward them by buying a game that's incredibly fun.
- QA Department asks testers to record any pertinant bugs they see. This is dependant on word from the developers about what they want the focus to be on (e.g. they might not want you to bug anything on level 3 because it's broken in a certain build, they may have scheduled work on fixing some shader/lighting issues 2 weeks from now so would ask you not to bug any shader/lighting issues for the time being). It is also dependant on how good the management is at prioritising tasks and formulating checksheets designed to exploit possible weaknesses in the game design.
- Developers get all these bugs and prioritise which ones they are able to fix within their schedule. Depending on their schedule, they may waive bugs that are too minor (don't impact too seriously on the gameplay/quality) or that are actually intended facets of the design but were bugged out of ignorance (through no fault of the tester), or that simply are too difficult to fix. This is dependant on how much time the publisher is willing to give them, and also on how well managed the team is in terms of task allocation, prioritisation, initial design, adaptability, etc.
- Internal/External producers weigh up the quality of the game with how much money it is likely to take if released at a given time with how much money it is likely to cost to pay the testers and the developers before release. They tell the developers how much time they have left and advise them on what sacrifices are acceptable; what is dispensable and what is indispensable in terms of gameplay and quality. This is how levels, bosses, special abilities and weapons, etc. all get cut and how 'crunch times' are born (because developers want to make as few sacrifices to the gameplay and quality as possible).
- The publishing company, its shareholders and other financiers look at predicted sales' forecasts and running costs and may put pressure on the producers to release before a specific date (e.g. to coincide with a financial quarter or a company earnings report to boost profit margins for a specific period).
Battlefield 2 is the same. I know it's trendy, hip, and fun to beat EA around with a 2x4 because they're the big mean evil game company that loves to stick all sorts of bugs in their games just to screw with your head, but face it: a good game is a good game, and if it's got bugs, that's bad, but some of the best games of all time still have bugs right now, as we speak, and people still love them. Battlefield 2 was not "half finished." It was fun the day it came out and it is fun today, many bugfixes later. Making games is hard. Making complex games is harder. There will always be bugs, and some people (like me) are willing to accept the tradeoffs and realize that if companies are going to strike a balance between ambitious game design, fast release schedules, and new content, at some point we're going to get bugs in the game. Other people (like you) demand absolute and utter perfection in every possible category, unless you would give EA a free pass on whether or not its games are fun, as long as they're bug free.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's where we differ Tycho.
Out of your list, in fact the only one I actually liked was in fact Deus Ex. I don't give the rest huge amounts of praise. In fact I was downright damning of 2 of that list for their shortcomings (STALKER and V:tM Bloodlines)
I don't bash EA because it's hip, trendy, or plain fun, although the third point remains a distinct advantage, nor do I believe they have bugs because 'they like to screw with my head'. I bash EA because almost uniquely in industry, software has a tendancy to feel you can get away with released half completed efforts, then relying on your user base to locate and remove issues. This problem vexes me in software in general. It just so happens the gaming industry is especially prone to it, and out of that industry, EA tend to stick out above the rest in their tendancy to feel(know?) they can get away with it. When this is neatly paired with a business model that is clearly completely uninterested in the process of making games, and is in fact interested in doing precisely the amount of effort required to shift boxes, and 0% more, I get on my soapbox a little.
Do I expect perfection? Of course. You will always get the minimum required to satisfy you as a consumer. Anything else tends to either be frills to excite you for the next purchase, or was a misjudgement on that minimum.
I don't think it's purely publishers, nor do I believe that all Developers are angelic hard working individuals out to make their best game. I believe it's an endemic belief that you can 'get by', which generally wouldn't be tolerated in an awful lot of other markets.
But hey, thanks for trying to tarbrush me there with some assumptions, it was really appreciated.
<a href="http://www.nofrag.com/images/0035c4/" target="_blank">http://www.nofrag.com/images/0035c4/</a>
<a href="http://www.nofrag.com/images/0035c5/" target="_blank">http://www.nofrag.com/images/0035c5/</a>
<a href="http://www.nofrag.com/images/0035c7/" target="_blank">http://www.nofrag.com/images/0035c7/</a>
Even if they decided to go with a cartoony style before TF2 was announced (which is hard to swallow), they changed to 'TF2 cartoony' after TF2 was released.