Support NeoGAF

[RooMHM]

first person shooters need good gunplay not graphics.

This isn't enough. FPS games need new gameplay ideas for movement, or even "management" or something else.

I would love to talk to Karl Magnus Troedsson about this trend...

This is laughable, the fall started long before that. Also Bad Company? Cmon, I thought we were serious.

 

[OryoN]

All the technology in the world couldn't save BF3's pathetically weak campaign mode.
So boring that it pains to even attempt to finish it.

Yet, they were able to create an equally compelling multiplayer experience with BF3 as they've been doing all along with older tech.

It's true that a brilliant developer can, and do, use tech to enhance the experience of a game in various ways. But when there's literally no substance to these games in the first place... what is there to enhance? It's like polishing a turd!

Some developers just need to get a damn clue. It's sickening!

 

[Barack Lesnar]

Oh god what have I started. A stealth BF3 discussion thread.

this post + your av = lol

 

[Sethos]

This should have been a "roundtable" question: DICE, Valve, id...



Feeling the sense of urgency, I leave my teammates behind, blasting everything in my path. Through the dust of war, now blanketing the bloody aftermath, a staircase emerges. I race up to the second floor, not thinking to look back. At the crest, a locked door impedes my progress, and, with no dedicated "use" key, I wait for my allies to pave the way forward. Silence. I backtrack, my eyes darting across the now-derelict office that had once offered a glimpse of hell. "Perhaps they were stuck on geometry?" I ask myself. No, even worse: they had abandoned me.

Yes, by running too far ahead of my teammates, the game decided to dump them, forcing me to restart the level. Suffice it to say that Battlefield 3's grossly over-scripted SP campaign is up there with Fable 3 as one of the worst gaming experiences of my life.

Also,

 

[Fersis]

I would love to talk to Karl Magnus Troedsson about this trend...

Just because you post that image in every BF/DICE thread it doesnt make it true.

All the technology in the world couldn't save BF3's pathetically weak campaign mode.
So boring that it pains to even attempt to finish it.

Yet, they were able to create an equally compelling multiplayer experience with BF3 as they've been doing all along with older tech.

It's true that a brilliant developer can, and do, use tech to enhance the experience of a game in various ways. But when there's literally no substance to these games in the first place... what is there to enhance? It's like polishing a turd!

Some developers just need to get a damn clue. It's sickening!

Yeah dunno what happened during the SP development but the SP is boring. (The tank mission was cool though)

 

[J-Rzez]

We'll have to see how well Planetside 2 does.

Persistent worlds in a FPS with a side competitive standard "deathmatch arena/modes" is what I'm thinking many would embrace.

Of course, the pretty graphics help.

 

[mclaren777]

Also Bad Company? Cmon, I thought we were serious.

I think Bad Company 1 is the best FPS of the generation if you don't count Mirror's Edge and Borderlands.

Just because you post that image in every BF/DICE thread it doesnt make it true.

Lots of people seem to agree with me.

 

[Derrick01]

I would love to talk to Karl Magnus Troedsson about this trend...

In no sane world is bad company 1 > BC2. Not for multiplayer anyway.

 

[JaseC]

Also,

Haha, at least he came back to open the door!

 

[Metalmurphy]

I think Bad Company 1 is the best FPS of the generation if you don't count Mirror's Edge and Borderlands.

And that's why no one takes you seriously.

Lots of people seem to agree with me.

Lots more disagree.

 

[2MF]

Also,

This is possibly the most hilarious gif from a game I've ever seen.

 

[Sojgat]

I thought the only good mission in BF3 SP campaign was "Comrades" which is the chapter in Paris. The mission told a pretty self contained and engaging story, had some of the only enjoyable encounters in the campaign, and moved through a variety of environments. Apart from the awful qte fist fight parts It's probably an example of linear military FPS done right. Kind of mind blowing how shit the rest of the campaign was.

 

[legacyzero]

I would love to talk to Karl Magnus Troedsson about this trend...

That is the most bullshit graph I've seen ever.

If anything, they are all consistent in their quality. If you ask me, BC2 was WORLDS better than BC1 multiplayer-wise though.

 

[Bisnic]

I dont remember hating the BF3 campaign as much as you guys. I thought it was a cool campaign where they pushed their realistic graphics as much as they could, nothing else. But then again, i dont play that many FPS, so maybe i'm not used to see what's a really good FPS campaign. Then last ones i can remember is Half-Life 2 and its episodes.

 

[mclem]

The most limiting aspect of an FPS is that last letter: it's a shooter. You interact with the world by shooting it. If you want something other than stagnation, leave out the guns and make the world something more than a destined receiver of bullets. I personally don't think that is necessary. Genres don't have to go somewhere where they stop being their genre.

Strictly speaking, it doesn't *have* to be. You can apply the basic design of an FPS but expand the interaction with the world. Look at Metroid Prime, look at S.T.A.L.K.E.R, and from a third person standpoint look at Dead Space or RE4.

You don't *have* to make little more than a shooting gallery. That doesn't stop it being an 'FPS'. Does it stop it selling? Sort of, in that I don't think S.T.A.L.K.E.R. did Battlefield numbers. But then, did it need to? It didn't cost Battlefield amounts to make, either.

In other words: I think it's a catch-22. To make a profit on a huge-budget FPS you need to appeal to everyone, which means making games that are little more than a shooting gallery, which means you'd have to focus on graphics to stand out, which means pushing the budget up. I suspect he's actually on a circular argument here, and I'm not sure he realises it.

In short: I think there's space in this universe for the FPS equivalent of Demon's Souls.

 

[Arnie]

I think Bad Company 1 is the best FPS of the generation if you don't count Mirror's Edge and Borderlands.

Then you can't be surprised when people don't take you seriously. You're clearly in the minority. I probably prefer BC2 to BF3, just, but BC1 isn't close. I didn't think it was a bad game, just not anywhere near as good as BC2 or the Battlefield games before it (minus Modern Combat which was a turd).

 

[Metalmurphy]

Then you can't be surprised when people don't take you seriously. You're clearly in the minority. I probably prefer BC2 to BF3, just, but BC1 isn't close. I didn't think it was a bad game, just not anywhere near as good as BC2 or the Battlefield games before it (minus Modern Combat which was a turd).

Suspiciously absent form that graph as well, for obvious reasons.

 

[Fudgepuppy]

Battlefield 3 was the shit that broke the camel's back for me.

Seriously, better game-design, better gameplay and smaller budgets DOES compute, it's not impossible.

I think I could seriously make a video-essay on the scale and quality of RedLetterMedia's Plinkett reviews regarding awful first-person gameplay that reached a milestone in awfulness with BF3.

 

[patapuf]

whoever judges the quality of bf titles on the single player campains is doing it wrong anyway.

 

[JaseC]

This is possibly the most hilarious gif from a game I've ever seen.

whoever judges the quality of bf titles on the single player campains is doint it wrong anyway.

Even if that were true, MP being the "heart" of Battlefield is hardly a valid excuse.

 

[Old Gimlet Eyes]

People want more of a focus on SP, in Battlefield of all games? SP games are linear and with brainless AI. BF3 was no different and I don't see that changing anytime soon. DICE needs to just pull everyone off SP and put them towards making more MP maps. SP Battlefield is terrible, will always be terrible and is just a waste of DICE resources.

As far as the tech goes, further development of their destruction tech is the way to go. I want to see Red Faction: Guerrilla levels of destruction in my Battlefield. Denser maps as well, such as more things to blow up.

Customization also helps to avoid stagnation. More levels of detailed customization on your weapon, camo and vehicles would help to differentiate players and keep things a bit more fresh. Think Rainbow Six: Vegas ACES system.

Lol at anyone who thinks BC1 is anywhere near the best BF game. It's better than Heroes, but that is about it.

Yes, throw more dirt on the players lenses, more lens flares and eyecandy. Nevermind the horrible gamedesign that makes every single military fps play almost exactly the same, minus some camera shaking and eyecandy.

Judging by BF3s campaign, DICE obviously really believes that it was the tech that made people think of it as a boring turd, and not the paint by numbers mission design and godawfull story, characters and mundane and boring set pieces.

Technological improvements are fine, but if they don't improve gameplay or game design they are of little value to me.

If you are judging any BF game by its campaign, you are always going to be disappointed.

 

[fabricated backlash]

Yes, throw more dirt on the players lenses, more lens flares and eyecandy. Nevermind the horrible gamedesign that makes every single military fps play almost exactly the same, minus some camera shaking and eyecandy.

Judging by BF3s campaign, DICE obviously really believes that it was the tech that made people think of it as a boring turd, and not the paint by numbers mission design and godawfull story, characters and mundane and boring set pieces.

Technological improvements are fine, but if they don't improve gameplay or game design they are of little value to me.

 

[Sojgat]

The most limiting aspect of an FPS is that last letter: it's a shooter. You interact with the world by shooting it. If you want something other than stagnation, leave out the guns and make the world something more than a destined receiver of bullets. I personally don't think that is necessary. Genres don't have to go somewhere where they stop being their genre.

I would argue it's the base starting point of most video games since their very beginning. Shooting/destroying something is the simplest form of interaction and leaves plenty of room to build from. The problem is most popular FPS don't even try, they just copy COD linear Whac-A-Mole shooting gallery.

 

[Fudgepuppy]

whoever judges the quality of bf titles on the single player campains is doing it wrong anyway.

C'mon dude.

 

[Red Blaster]

There are people who think BC2 is better than BF3

how is such a thing possible

BC2 had perks for crying out loud

 

[The Hermit]

Also,

bwhaaha! woops, forgot to open the door for you!

I was going to buy BF3 just so I can test my new graphic card, but after this thread I don't think I'll bother, since I will only play SP.

 

[patapuf]

Even if that were true, MP being the "heart" of Battlefield is hardly a valid excuse.

it isn't but almost all innovation in bf is done because of the MP not the SP.

C'mon dude.

the critisism of the campaings is valid and they should improve the sp if they include it but that's not where the majority of the effort is and it shows.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

DICE's own BF3 tells me that technology only goes so far. It is supposedly technologically better than BC2 yet it bores me to tears.

 

[legacyzero]

whoever judges the quality of bf titles on the single player campains is doing it wrong anyway.

It's pretty funny when something like DICE has to add a lackluster SP for the "back of the box" selling point.

For most OTHER franchises, it's the other way around. That's a shitty excuse though. There is no reason gamers cant expect both for their $60 purchase.

DICE's own BF3 tells me that technology only goes so far. It is supposedly technologically better than BC2 yet it bores me to tears.

THIS is my point.

It's not like DICE is incapable of writing a great story and pacing for a single player Campaign. Bad Company 1 and 2 are shining examples of that.

I think the comment on settings was interesting.

Interesting to see where the next BF game will go. I will take Battlefield 1944 please.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the modern setting yet. I'm just sick and fucking tired of the DESSERT. At least Spec Ops got it right (for the most part.)

 

[Old Gimlet Eyes]

I think the comment on settings was interesting.

"I think we're going to start seeing people moving away from the modern setting, because every now and again settings or themes start to get stale and then everyone jumps over," he continues. "Y'know, at some point dinosaurs are the hottest thing and everyone is making games with dinosaurs, but there are trends. It used to be WWII, and recently it's been the modern era and people are now moving towards near future.

Interesting to see where the next BF game will go. Battlefield 1944 please.

 

[Goldmund]

I would argue it's the base starting point of most video games since their very beginning. Shooting/destroying something is the simplest form of interaction and leaves plenty of room to build from. The problem is most popular FPS don't even try, they just copy COD linear Whac-A-Mole shooting gallery.

I know this is often argued, but it's not very accurate, and its own basis is probably the projection of current trends onto the past; it's a contemporary genealogy in the worst sense. If we consider a video game's world a set of its elements, re-organization of these elements is certainly at the heart of all fashions of gameplay, but elimination (shooting/destroying) is one of many already advanced operations, one that isn't constitutive and doesn't have to be declared possible. If we were to order all operations by "simplicity", moving an element would come before removing it.

 

[watership]

whoever judges the quality of bf titles on the single player campains is doing it wrong anyway.

You judge a game for what's in the box. Good and bad. IF you tell me that BF3 was a great game, I'll disagree and say it was absolutely not. The campaign was a complete disaster. If you say the multiplayer in BF3 was good, I will agree.

Spoiler

Yet how do you take 3 years to make a game and have one death animation for your entire multiplayer game? HOW?

 

[Metalmurphy]

Spoiler

Yet how do you take 3 years to make a game and have one death animation for your entire multiplayer game? HOW?

What? Knife kills alone have like 15 different animations, and normal kills are ragdoll based and look great.


http://i.minus.com/ibsaqaIbikISfv.gif

 

[Neuromancer]

Technology is no replacement for creativity. DICE's last two campaigns have been awful and all the destruction and particle effects in the world can't save them.

 

[watership]

What? Knife kills alone have like 15 different animations, and normal kills are ragdoll based and look great.


http://i.minus.com/ibsaqaIbikISfv.gif

Sure, but what happens when you die? You fall down, one hand raises up, and then lowers. Repeat. It bothered me to no end.

 

[Metalmurphy]

Sure, but what happens when you die? You fall down, one hand raises up, and then lowers. Repeat.

Oh, your own death. Tbh I never really paid much attention to that lol.

 

[Sojgat]

I know this is often argued, but it's not very accurate, and its own basis is probably the projection of current trends onto the past; it's a contemporary genealogy in the worst sense. If we consider a video game's world a set of its elements, re-organization of these elements is certainly at the heart of all fashions of gameplay, but elimination (shooting/destroying) is one of many already advanced operations, one that isn't constitutive and doesn't have to be declared possible. If we were to order all operations by "simplicity", moving an element would come before removing it.

I think the exact opposite is true in terms of depicting meaningful interaction in a video game, but my real point was that the fact a FPS is primarily involved with shooting guns, should not in any way be a limiting factor to creating new and interesting experiences.

 

[Kai Dracon]

To me, it is very typical of both the industry and much of the game playing public that AAA games are aimed at, to cite technological superiority as the solution to all problems.

Every game is a first person shooter? Fresh shaders will fix it.

Every first person shooter has the same gun in it? Fresh shaders.

Every FPS is set in the same scenario, with the same characters, using the same story motif and general plot construction? SHADERS, UPGRADE THE GPU, UNLEASH OUR CREATIVITY!

It's more like people who have no ideas, who can't really design games or come up with game concepts, falling back on technical expertise and engineering ability to justify why they're getting paid.

Backed up by a game buying demographic that has been surgically selected to place most value on a few check boxes and disregard everything else: aka, going online and playing the same death match game against other people for bragging rights, while desiring to see a set of fresh shaders they haven't seen before to keep each new game 'novel'.

Was talking about this with someone recently... does it say something that most indie persons, who find their own way into game development, do not simply want to go and make a first person shooter or something that is one of the like 3 or 4 ground-down genres which comprise the backbone of AAA games? Curiously enough, most people outside the 'pro league' game industry want to make unusual things, classic style games, simple but addictive arcade fare, and presently uncommon adventure and RPG staples.

One could argue that it is the fault of publishers that genuine creativity and a healthy variety of ideas in the design ecosystem is stifled, but I'm not that sure. While some developers do tell stories of proposing games that break out of the current stagnation only to be shot down, I seem to read plenty of these people who, when queried, just seem to not have a thought in their head besides "throw more hardware power at it! Crank up those shaders! Have you seen what we're doing with scripted crumbling walls today?! We're pushing the envelope! Changing the world!"

 

[mclaren777]

SP Battlefield is terrible, will always be terrible and is just a waste of DICE resources.

Totally disagree. I think DICE has proven that it's basically the only company that can make an awesome FPS campaign (BC1) so it's unfortunate that people aren't asking for more games like that.

 

[MrGame&Watch]

First person shooters need to be more clean and competitive focused, not like Battlefield 3s clusterfuck lé grande with the worst hit detection in recent gaming memory. Where are all the good Counter-Strike "successors"? where are the games with focus on improving hit detection? where are the games with a gun and a player, not perks, bonuses, streaks, claymores, iWin buttons, helicopters and complete clusterfuck?

What casual player wants to play against a bunch of really good players where it takes a huge time commitment to get good? Those "iwin buttons" are the reason why they still play. It allows someone working all day to have fun for 20 minutes and cool off after work.

 

[Arnie]

I actually agree with his point, but I think it has to be technology that influences gameplay, rather than technology in a purely visual sense.

The reason I prefer BC2 to BF3 is, in my opinion, it's greater emphasis on destruction. It may not be as refined as BF3, destruction points are predictable and scripted, but it's far more consistent and as a result prevalent in the game's design. Blowing up buildings in Arica was a genuine example of technology advancing design, and I feel like BF3 takes a step back in that regard. BC2s destruction was so prevalent that matches played out in numerous ways, whereas slight pieces of chipped cover or the odd blown out window don't change the flow of the map as much in BF3. The whole thing feels more visual, rather than functional.

Destruction is, in my opinion, the future of the Battlefield franchise. Object penetration needs to improve (it's terrible in BF3, worse than BC2 even) and they need to implement true destruction 2.0. Take the scale of BC2 and evolve it, don't scale back but make it look prettier. It's about function over aesthetics.

There's no doubting that technology has influenced and advanced BF3, the lighting formula is fantastic and really helps to give flashlights a use within the game and in dark environments. But there aren't many more technological improvements that affect the gameplay on the same level that destruction did for BC2.

 

[Goldmund]

I think the exact opposite is true in terms of depicting meaningful interaction in a video game, but my real point was that the fact a FPS is primarily involved with shooting guns, should not in any way be a limiting factor to creating new and interesting experiences.

It is you who differentiates between "meaningful interaction" and just interaction; so you, too, argue, that it's not something fundamental; it's something very subjective and current. Anyway, one is movement on the visible plane, one is movement that takes into account and place on a dimension not represented on that plane. By comparison, it's advanced.

EDIT: Maybe "visible plane" isn't very accurate, but you get what I mean.

 

[Sethos]

What casual player wants to play against a bunch of really good players where it takes a huge time commitment to get good? Those "iwin buttons" are the reason why they still play. It allows someone working all day to have fun for 20 minutes and cool off after work.

Oh that makes it alright then.

 

[twobear]

Technology company believes everyone should update their technology to push industry forward SHOCKER.

 

[2MF]

Technology company believes everyone should update their technology to push industry forward SHOCKER.

DICE is not a technology company. Their engines are barely used outside DICE, and not used at all outside EA, as far as I know.

If it was Epic saying something like this I might agree with you.

 

[Arnie]

Technology company believes everyone should update their technology to push industry forward SHOCKER.

Just because they make their own technology doesn't make them a technology company.

 

[twobear]

Just because they make their own technology doesn't make them a technology company.

Their whole schtick has always been LOOK AT OUR HD EXPLOSIONS though. When I say technology company I mean that they're always at the cutting edge, not necessarily that they sell it.

 

[mclem]

DICE is not a technology company. Their engines are barely used outside DICE, and not used at all outside EA, as far as I know.

If it was Epic saying something like this I might agree with you.

I've said a few times that I wouldn't be surprised if a change to that may be on the cards. There's nothing inherently stopping them from selling Frostbite licenses, and it strikes me as the sort of pie EA might like a piece of.

 

[PjotrStroganov]

[...]That propensity toward trends at the mainstream end of the market, rather than a greater diversity of themes, is, of course, what many critics of the genre would point to as its major problem. But it's hard to begrudge big-budget teams' need to minimise risk in the face of a cripplingly conservative buying public. And while Troedsson acknowledges that more needs to be done, spectacle remains high on his list of priorites.[...]"I think it's our responsibility as game developers to always push ourselves when it comes to the experience of games," [...]

Correct observation. The problem is big budget and the accompanying risks instead of the conservative buying public. The majority of the public will probably be willing to buy something else if along the line budgets decrease. I doubt if they'll stop gaming altogether if budgets decrease.

 

[Stallion Free]

I've said a few times that I wouldn't be surprised if a change to that may be on the cards. There's nothing inherently stopping them from selling Frostbite licenses, and it strikes me as the sort of pie EA might like a piece of.

EA actually made it quite clear that they were using Frostbite solely for their franchises. The engine still sounds like a complete clusterfuck for development based off what Dice has said, so I don't see why any dev would want to use it over CE3/4/UE4 since those are all about smoothing out the dev process.