Star Wars: Battlefront

Is there a reason why every game must be priced at $59.99 as a base? I only ask because I'm thinking it would be an excellent marketing strategy to sell at a lower starting base price to increase perceived value upon entry to make it a lot more enticing to the customers. Like mark it down to $49.99 and instantly the thought is it's $10 less than they normally pay on a new game, and when a $50 season pass comes, it still sucks, but doesn't feel as bad because you're also thinking, "Well it was a pretty good deal at the start and isn't that much more if you factor the $10 savings. Okay I'll pay it."

Even $49.99 is kinda steep especially when right before the game release they announce preordering $50 dlc passes.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

It gets a little complicated with the retail pricing on console games. The 1st party companies (Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo) are taking about $15 of the price for letting the publishers/developers sell the game for their console. This usually changes over time depending on sales, eventually going down to $10 or less, which is often why you will see new "GOTY" editions of big sellers at a reduced price. The retailer is keeping $20 or $30, depending on the price. The remainder is what the publisher/developer keep, and that might amount to around $10 or $15, depending on deals they have made and where the price was set.

This is why the industry wants to get away from the retail model and stick to direct downloads. It is much more profitable that way, which is why you see the crazy deals on Steam. It is also why we see the shift to the DLC model.

Still, the retail sale of console games is where all the money is currently being spent, so game pricing reflects it.

With development budgets at $50million+ these days, most games still do not even break even. It is the big selling franchises that support the industry. It's a tough business to be in, involving a lot of risk, and a ton of hard work by the developers. 80 and 100 hour weeks, sustained for long periods, are the norm. Individual developers are not likely to see much payment outside of their salary unless they get a big hit on their hands. Even then, on a game that makes a $billion, top-level developers might see a 6-figure check (that wouldn't even cover their unpaid overtime worked over the years on the game).

Pricing simply isn't as simple as most seem to imagine it is.
 
Is there any one in the UK here who has the Deluxe version from the US, if so are there any issues running it?
 
What gets me is when they want 60.00 for a download of the game when that's the price of a physical copy. There's no incentive for me to go digital only at those prices and honestly it's going to be another decade at least before all digital as some areas don't have the internet infrastructure.
 
Well, prices do vary a lot more than that. The games I produce rarely cost over $40 at launch for example.

But it has to do with development cost vs estimated sales vs what people are willing to pay.

It's a pretty complex equasion and lowering the price might not result in enough extra sales to justify the cut. Cutting the price in half does not guarantee twice the sales and may even damage your perceived value and cripple you ability to invest in future games.

If you factor in hours of entertainment vs cost, video and computer games are inexpensive compared to many other forms of entertainment, as well as other consumables.

I understand why the question exists, as a game buyer myself, but it's just not easy to answer.

And regarding DLC... it's just the expasion packs of yesteryear (that no one had problems with) broken down into bite-size chunks.

Two things.

1. I agree that there's a mindset about prices and what they "represent" in gaming. For example, one of the big criticisms of Battlefront has been that they "want me to pay AAA prices for a half-finished game." The implication being that $59.99-69.99 = AAA prices. $40 games are usually a mix of solidly produced indie fare that's catering to a niche market (e.g. Harebrained Schemes' games, Slitherine's wargames), and "not-quite-AAA" titles. The actual quality of the games can be quite good, and (in my opinion) is very often better than the AAA market, but I tend to be more "niche" in my tastes anyway.

2. The issue that I think consumers have with DLC is that, unlike a lot of the expansion packs of yore, the DLC itself often isn't worth the price of admission. Compare, say, the expansion packs for the old X-wing games. You basically had to pay about half the price of a full game for one of these, but you usually got something like 12-20 more missions, plus a new ship or two to fly. Balance of Power added full co-op story campaigns to X-Wing vs. Tie Fighter (and, in my opinion, is the only part of XvT really worth playing because of that). That's some bang for your buck, right there! Compare that to, say, DLC that gives you...three additional skins for your avatar all for the low, low price of $9.99. Some DLC does, indeed, add new maps, new weapons, new game modes, etc., and I'd say those are often worthwhile, but it can really depend on the DLC in question.

I think another issue at play here is the "Season Pass" approach, which is basically pre-ordering (already a stupid thing for consumers to do, though I get why publishers do it) but for DLC (which strikes me as even riskier, if the DLC turns out to just be a bunch of skins).

It gets a little complicated with the retail pricing on console games. The 1st party companies (Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo) are taking about $15 of the price for letting the publishers/developers sell the game for their console. This usually changes over time depending on sales, eventually going down to $10 or less, which is often why you will see new "GOTY" editions of big sellers at a reduced price. The retailer is keeping $20 or $30, depending on the price. The remainder is what the publisher/developer keep, and that might amount to around $10 or $15, depending on deals they have made and where the price was set.

This is why the industry wants to get away from the retail model and stick to direct downloads. It is much more profitable that way, which is why you see the crazy deals on Steam. It is also why we see the shift to the DLC model.

Still, the retail sale of console games is where all the money is currently being spent, so game pricing reflects it.

With development budgets at $50million+ these days, most games still do not even break even. It is the big selling franchises that support the industry. It's a tough business to be in, involving a lot of risk, and a ton of hard work by the developers. 80 and 100 hour weeks, sustained for long periods, are the norm. Individual developers are not likely to see much payment outside of their salary unless they get a big hit on their hands. Even then, on a game that makes a $billion, top-level developers might see a 6-figure check (that wouldn't even cover their unpaid overtime worked over the years on the game).

Pricing simply isn't as simple as most seem to imagine it is.

What gets me is when they want 60.00 for a download of the game when that's the price of a physical copy. There's no incentive for me to go digital only at those prices and honestly it's going to be another decade at least before all digital as some areas don't have the internet infrastructure.

Some of that could have to do with agreements that the publishers have with retail outlets. I have no idea if this is industry custom, but there could be some agreement between, say, Activision and Gamestop stating that XYZ game will not go below ABC price point via digital download until after a set date.



My question is why companies like Activision will keep their game prices artificially high for years after release. For example, right now during Steam's Black Friday sale, COD:World at War is 50% off...and is still $10 to buy. Is this because these games didn't make money the first time around, or is the theory that the brand is worth that much and people will buy old games at high prices based on the brand alone? Or possibly based on unfamiliarity with the fact that the game is old, thinking they're just getting a cheap new-ish game?
 
Solo4114 said:
Some of that could have to do with agreements that the publishers have with retail outlets. I have no idea if this is industry custom, but there could be some agreement between, say, Activision and Gamestop stating that XYZ game will not go below ABC price point via digital download until after a set date.

My question is why companies like Activision will keep their game prices artificially high for years after release. For example, right now during Steam's Black Friday sale, COD:World at War is 50% off...and is still $10 to buy. Is this because these games didn't make money the first time around, or is the theory that the brand is worth that much and people will buy old games at high prices based on the brand alone? Or possibly based on unfamiliarity with the fact that the game is old, thinking they're just getting a cheap new-ish game?

You are absolutely right, Dan. It is common practice, especially with the big publishers and their big cash-cow franchises, to set minimum price points as terms of a distribution contract.

As far as COD:World at War, it was a sales record-breaker, beating the records set by the first Modern Warfare, and surpassing the revenue levels of the movie record-holder (Avatar). You could not get more profitable than that, at the time. Why is it still $10 on the Steam sale? Well, because used copies of the console SKUs still sell for $20 at Gamestop, which gets to make it's own rules when re-selling used games. Their pre-owned pricing is supposedly based on supply and demand, and that is still the going rate.

You have to keep in mind that companies like Activision have huge marketing divisions that spend a lot of money determining what the target-market will bear. They will invest millions (to make billions) on focus-group testing, aimed at the almighty 14-24 year old male target demographic. The opinions of those of us old enough to remember the old X-wing PC games and their expansions are irrelevant from a business standpoint. All that matters is the perception of the target audience. This is why the COD games of today bare little resemblance to the historically-respectful WW2 games of yesteryear. The more profitable the games became, the more marketing was taking all control away from us as developers to decide what game we wanted to make. Teenagers found on Craigslist, paid $50 and some pizza for a few hours of their time, got whatever they asked for, no matter how stupid it was.

In fact, the entire PC game market has been largely irrelevant to the big publishers for a long time now. They will port a console title to PC only if marketing determines that it can make about 1 million, and cost substantially less (you know, because they are generally developed on PC in the first place), but that equates to less than 1% of what the console SKUs will make. The PC market has become more relevant over the years because of Steam and Origin and the digital-download market, but this opens up a can of worms as far as pricing and competition with the console SKUs. The digital-downloads are much more profitable, but they feel they have to protect the perceived value of the console SKUs that make up 95% of the sales. There's just no way that the "installed base" of gaming PCs is ever going to approach the numbers of the big consoles. This is why the 1st party companies want to push the digital-download sales direct from the consoles themselves.

It isn't just the PC-elite gamer who is largely irrelevant from a marketing standpoint, but even the "hardcore console gamer" really only represents a minuscule fraction of the market. Contrary to popular belief, they don't amount to a hill of beans. They are the 1% that can make a lot of noise, but the sales are hardly effected. They can trash a new title on Metacritic en masse, driving user scores down to 4%, but the game will still set new sales records all the same.

That "unfamiliarity with the fact that the game is old" is a real thing as well, and they count on it. There is a boost in sales of the older COD titles every November-December, along with the release of the new titles every year. Little Johnny asks for the new COD every year, but mom and dad or grandpa and grandma don't know which is the right one. The current title may even be sold-out. With Black Ops 3 this year, I suspect there will be sudden increases in the sales of the 2006 COD 3, along with unrelated titles with "3" in them.
 
You are absolutely right, Dan. It is common practice, especially with the big publishers and their big cash-cow franchises, to set minimum price points as terms of a distribution contract.

As far as COD:World at War, it was a sales record-breaker, beating the records set by the first Modern Warfare, and surpassing the revenue levels of the movie record-holder (Avatar). You could not get more profitable than that, at the time. Why is it still $10 on the Steam sale? Well, because used copies of the console SKUs still sell for $20 at Gamestop, which gets to make it's own rules when re-selling used games. Their pre-owned pricing is supposedly based on supply and demand, and that is still the going rate.

You have to keep in mind that companies like Activision have huge marketing divisions that spend a lot of money determining what the target-market will bear. They will invest millions (to make billions) on focus-group testing, aimed at the almighty 14-24 year old male target demographic. The opinions of those of us old enough to remember the old X-wing PC games and their expansions are irrelevant from a business standpoint. All that matters is the perception of the target audience. This is why the COD games of today bare little resemblance to the historically-respectful WW2 games of yesteryear. The more profitable the games became, the more marketing was taking all control away from us as developers to decide what game we wanted to make. Teenagers found on Craigslist, paid $50 and some pizza for a few hours of their time, got whatever they asked for, no matter how stupid it was.

In fact, the entire PC game market has been largely irrelevant to the big publishers for a long time now. They will port a console title to PC only if marketing determines that it can make about 1 million, and cost substantially less (you know, because they are generally developed on PC in the first place), but that equates to less than 1% of what the console SKUs will make. The PC market has become more relevant over the years because of Steam and Origin and the digital-download market, but this opens up a can of worms as far as pricing and competition with the console SKUs. The digital-downloads are much more profitable, but they feel they have to protect the perceived value of the console SKUs that make up 95% of the sales. There's just no way that the "installed base" of gaming PCs is ever going to approach the numbers of the big consoles. This is why the 1st party companies want to push the digital-download sales direct from the consoles themselves.

It isn't just the PC-elite gamer who is largely irrelevant from a marketing standpoint, but even the "hardcore console gamer" really only represents a minuscule fraction of the market. Contrary to popular belief, they don't amount to a hill of beans. They are the 1% that can make a lot of noise, but the sales are hardly effected. They can trash a new title on Metacritic en masse, driving user scores down to 4%, but the game will still set new sales records all the same.

That "unfamiliarity with the fact that the game is old" is a real thing as well, and they count on it. There is a boost in sales of the older COD titles every November-December, along with the release of the new titles every year. Little Johnny asks for the new COD every year, but mom and dad or grandpa and grandma don't know which is the right one. The current title may even be sold-out. With Black Ops 3 this year, I suspect there will be sudden increases in the sales of the 2006 COD 3, along with unrelated titles with "3" in them.

That makes a lot of sense, really, and tracks to pretty much what I've suspected about the industry. What I've found to be true, though, is that when you step away from the AAA developers, there are actually a lot of developers out there making games for niche markets, and a lot of that action is happening on the PC first.

But anyway, I guess this all helps explain the price tag on Battlefront.

I suspect that EA's attitude is that game reviews really don't matter a ton for a game like this. In essence, they could afford to sell a game with far, far fewer assets, and less complicated gameplay at full price...because they know (A) people who know Star Wars fans will get it for them because it's been advertised all over, and (B) plenty of non-gamers are gonna buy it just because the ads look cool. And that'll be where the "Season Pass" concept will come in.

IF this works, in essence, it introduces an entire new cadre of gamers to the Season Pass model of buying content, and establishes that as "the norm" for them. Rather than being picky about the DLC they get and how it's just a bunch of skins and boring unlockables or whathaveyou, they'll be accustomed to "Oh, just buy the Season Pass and get all the stuff, whatever it is."
 
I'm starting to get more into the game and I'm liking it more and more.
In the beginning I was just so used to the original two games the first things I noticed were the aspects that were missing. I'm starting to get a feel for all the good new stuff.

Leveling system:
I'm not sure I like this aspect but I'll get used to it. The nice thing about the originals was the lack of leveling. So a fresh player can just log on and play on equal ground with seasoned players. It seemed that manual skill was all that mattered. With the leveling system you're entering the playing field with a basic blaster and a grenade and meeting folks with exotic sniping weaponry and devastating effects. On the bright side it's quite easy to level up to earn those perks and, over time, it's inevitable that you can unlock new weapons and boosts.

Gameplay:
I still miss the ability to dive for cover that was in BF2.

Maps:
Hoth - It's much more organic and immersive than the originals. I still don't know my way around the underground but I'm enjoying it more and more. I now think the BF2 map is boring in comparison.
Endor - For the first time cover and camouflage make a difference. It's a little harder to see the enemy in the brush. I used to think (in BF2) that it was simply too easy to spot the enemy everywhere. The map has a nice balance.


Is it worth the price? All I can say is that I've spent good money on other games that were a complete waste of time.
Battlefront is a rewarding experience and I feel I've got my money's worth.
(now give us a Death Star map!)
 
http://imgur.com/gallery/ib8nW

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-11/24/star-wars-battlefront-photo-real-toddyhancer-mod

https://www.facebook.com/Martin-Bergmans-Toddyhancer-746074985504634

5Z08Dvj.png


bsWibVG.png


0HflGRS.png
 
The actual quality of the games can be quite good, and (in my opinion) is very often better than the AAA market, but I tend to be more "niche" in my tastes anyway.
You should play some of the games I produce if you like niche stuff, haha. But how do you define quality on a broad scale? Stability? High production values? Gameplay that lasts for hundreds of hours? It's so different to everyone. For me personally, if I can go "Hey, that was pretty cool." after playing a game for a while it's enough for me. I'm very picky about what I will play, but not what I will praise.

Balance of Power added full co-op story campaigns to X-Wing vs. Tie Fighter (and, in my opinion, is the only part of XvT really worth playing because of that). That's some bang for your buck, right there!
The Balance of Power addon would likely cost 20X more to make today than it did back then. (Not joking.)

Compare that to, say, DLC that gives you...three additional skins for your avatar all for the low, low price of $9.99. Some DLC does, indeed, add new maps, new weapons, new game modes, etc., and I'd say those are often worthwhile, but it can really depend on the DLC in question.
For sure, there has been a lot of pointless DLC, but as with all things... no one has to buy them. Have there been any really bad season passes so far? (I dont' know, because I usually never have time to play games long enough to buy additional content.) I DID however buy the 1989 Batman skin for the latest game... totally worth it to run around in my favorite batsuit. (Not that I've had a chance to actually PLAY it yet but...) The SWBF pass seems to contain new levels at least, in addition to them giving away at least one for free.


or is the theory that the brand is worth that much and people will buy old games at high prices based on the brand alone?
It completely depends on the title. Any seller of any product will most likely demand as much payment as they can get away with. And there IS always the brand value thing to consider. You will never see a Ferrari sell for peanuts. (Yes, I realize that a game is intangible, but the brand value still exists.)

In essence, they could afford to sell a game with far, far fewer assets, and less complicated gameplay at full price...
It's just so hard to get around the fact that a virtual rock today costs infinitely more to build than it did before and if you're operating on the level that DICE, Bioware and Bungie are, you can't not take it that far. (Imagine if Lamborghini came out with a Budget model. Porche did in the 80's and look how well that was received!) It's going to continue until we hit the barrier of true photo-realism which, at least in terms of terrain and architecture, we're not too far from right now. Once we get there, efforts will go towards streamlining the process and fix other areas (like eradicating the Uncanny Valley, but that's gonna take a loooong time).

Does less complicated gameplay equal less quality or less value? Creating streamlined (simple) gameplay with depth is a lot more complicated from a design point than just piling on features. With the little time I have to play games these days that I don't work on, I'd happily pay MORE if they were less complex. I LOVE the fact that the new Battlefront is more light and casual... I can pop in for fifteen minutes during lunch and just immerse myself in Star Wars.

that's simply incredible.
I wonder if a hurdle will be making human faces that don't look out of place.
Absolutely. Animations as well. We're still pretty far from achieving a truly believable virtual character that is indistinguishable from an actual human. We can get close, for short periods, but not for any length of time.
 
You should play some of the games I produce if you like niche stuff, haha. But how do you define quality on a broad scale? Stability? High production values? Gameplay that lasts for hundreds of hours? It's so different to everyone. For me personally, if I can go "Hey, that was pretty cool." after playing a game for a while it's enough for me. I'm very picky about what I will play, but not what I will praise.

It's entirely personal and subjective. I freely admit that. Graphics need to be up to snuff, ideally outside the "uncanny valley." For example, I tried playing Sniper Elite v1. Came out in '05, and it just looks...awful. Even with the highest settings. The reason is that it's that era of 3D where textures looked decent, but models and animations were hit or miss. But, on the other hand, I have zero problem playing old-school-looking adventure games with hand drawn backgrounds and stuff. Those tend to take on a more cartoony look, though, so it's outside the uncanny valley and fully into the "not trying to look real" territory.

Gameplay has to be fun and appealing to me, to the point where I don't find myself questioning too many of the design decisions. Some of that, though, is also about how the game presents itself. For example, Europa Universalis IV presents itself as an "empire building sim." Except, it's not. The abstractions involved are, in my opinion, just as "gamey" as what you see in the Civ games, which, basically, are just animated board games. That's fine, but, you know, present your game accurately. Speaking of Civ, I found the 1 unit per tile decision in Civ 5 to be absolutely a game-killer. Terrible design, and I haven't played it in years. Ideally, I don't want to "see the strings," so to speak.

With TellTale's Game of Thrones game, for example, while I enjoy the game, I think it presents itself as too determinative. As in, your choices determine the outcome (or so it seems), when they really don't. They determine your character's behavior, but the outcomes are largely fixed. That's fine, but sell the game accordingly. When the game says "So and so will remember that..." I mean, no, they won't. Not really. Or at least, not all the time.

I tend to think that there are certain principles that ought to be present in game design, especially within certain genres. Online multiplayer FPS games, for example, shouldn't have maps where either team can be locked into their base (a.k.a. the "fish in a barrel" scenario). That's just...not fun. To the extent it happens, the map design should make it clear that this is intentional. Make it an attack/defend map where the goal is to hold out until relieved. So, yeah, you may be pushed back to the final line of defense, but you're still able to fight back and maybe win the round. I also loathe unlock systems because they reward time-played rather than skill-at-playing. I know I've lost that battle, though...

Anyway, quality is a moving target for me. I have certain consistent themes, depending on genre, but it really comes down to whether I think the game design decisions were good ones.

The Balance of Power addon would likely cost 20X more to make today than it did back then. (Not joking.)

Oh, of course, and it'd be sold basically as a standalone game, probably as an "off-year release" or whatever. So, if your "major" titles come out every 2 years, you have "the other studio" do the "off-year" releases, and Balance of Power would've been one of them. I'd expect a retail price of about $39.99 these days.

For sure, there has been a lot of pointless DLC, but as with all things... no one has to buy them. Have there been any really bad season passes so far? (I dont' know, because I usually never have time to play games long enough to buy additional content.) I DID however buy the 1989 Batman skin for the latest game... totally worth it to run around in my favorite batsuit. (Not that I've had a chance to actually PLAY it yet but...) The SWBF pass seems to contain new levels at least, in addition to them giving away at least one for free.

Honestly, I don't know if there've been bad season passes. I gather some of the Batman game season passes have been mediocre, but I've bought Game of the Year versions for both, so it was a moot point. I bought Battlefield 3's premium...and decided I wouldn't do a season pass again, unless I got it super cheap.

There's also, of course, a question of price point. How much is the season pass? Is it cheaper to buy everything, even if one of the releases turns out to be garbage?

Personally, I still think they're wasted money, but I understand why publishers do them now. It's guaranteed income and, I gather, much higher profit margins.

It completely depends on the title. Any seller of any product will most likely demand as much payment as they can get away with. And there IS always the brand value thing to consider. You will never see a Ferrari sell for peanuts. (Yes, I realize that a game is intangible, but the brand value still exists.)

Right, that's what I figure. Hence why the cheapest you'll see a Call of Duty game retail for is $10 for COD1-COD3, maybe.

It's just so hard to get around the fact that a virtual rock today costs infinitely more to build than it did before and if you're operating on the level that DICE, Bioware and Bungie are, you can't not take it that far. (Imagine if Lamborghini came out with a Budget model. Porche did in the 80's and look how well that was received!) It's going to continue until we hit the barrier of true photo-realism which, at least in terms of terrain and architecture, we're not too far from right now. Once we get there, efforts will go towards streamlining the process and fix other areas (like eradicating the Uncanny Valley, but that's gonna take a loooong time).

I hope so. I'd like to see focus shift towards really, really carefully designing gameplay, and maybe some genuine innovation in game design.

Does less complicated gameplay equal less quality or less value? Creating streamlined (simple) gameplay with depth is a lot more complicated from a design point than just piling on features. With the little time I have to play games these days that I don't work on, I'd happily pay MORE if they were less complex. I LOVE the fact that the new Battlefront is more light and casual... I can pop in for fifteen minutes during lunch and just immerse myself in Star Wars.

Well, to be clear, simple does not necessarily mean bad. The real question is how is the game simple or complicated. Derek Smart would have you believe that his games are good because they're nearly impenetrable in their complexity. I think that's a really dumb idea, myself. Complexity for its own sake is stupid. But there's a point where simplifying the game, in my opinion, takes away from the fun.

I like a little complexity, but I guess I'd like to see a game like Battlefront have "Arcade mode" (as it currently is) and "Realism mode" where recoil is more a factor than conefire, where aiming down the sights actually matters, where there are multi-crew vehicles on the field, rather than "tokens" (which really just seems like an attempt to cut down on processing requirements).

I dunno. I guess I tend to view a lot of EA/DICE's games as pretty well locked in place. They aren't mod-friendly at all (as compared to, say, Bethesda or Valve games), they don't allow a ton of player customization, and they try to centralize the entire experience. DICE is also super, super slow at fixing glaringly obvious bugs. And, perhaps more importantly, they're slow to even acknowledge their existence. Like, not even an announcement like "Hey, we're aware people are noticing a higher damage than usual on the grenade launcher after the last patch. We just want to let everyone know we're looking into it, and we'll keep you posted on further developments." Then, like, 2 weeks later, maybe post a "We're still looking into the issue. We're data-mining games where this pops up, and are trying to recreate the problem in-house. We want to make sure that, when we fix it (and we will) that we don't accidentally create a new problem. We're shooting for an early April fix, but we'll let you know as we get closer and have a better idea."

The bigger these games get, and the more expensive they get, the more it's going to be really, really important for these companies to manage their community better. And that means outside of just Twitter. Right now, it seems a lot of the devs like to just tweet about what's going on, rather than, say, posting announcements to the game's message boards or whathaveyou. I get it. They're busy, Twitter's easy and fast, but still, hire a damn community relations punching bag...er...manager on top of dev direct communication. The recent fracas with Overkill Studios and Payday 2 ought to be an object lesson in how not to manage community relations.

Absolutely. Animations as well. We're still pretty far from achieving a truly believable virtual character that is indistinguishable from an actual human. We can get close, for short periods, but not for any length of time.

Yeah, it's one thing to make an awesome static scene, but quite another to have good animations. And, of course, hands will always be a major hurdle, 'cause nobody wants to animate a fully articulated hand.
 
Yeah, it's one thing to make an awesome static scene, but quite another to have good animations. And, of course, hands will always be a major hurdle, 'cause nobody wants to animate a fully articulated hand.
Hands look terrible - even in most CG films.
Maybe someone will take the initiative to just work on a definitive suite of hand mechanisms for developers (and filmmakers). Until then hands will just move like stiff plates.
 
Biggest complaint:
The game mandates that you capture control points in order. I'm guessing they did that for the console players who are restricted to a few players at a time so they're not wandering around looking for fights. That means that the conflict is confined to one or two places at a time.
This fact, as well as the inability to choose spawn points, makes it more like just a big brawl since you are directed towards the fight by the active command point markers.
BF2 was much more strategic. For PC players who play 40 players at a time the strategic game was a lot more interesting.
 
Last edited:
Dascoyne, thanks for that info. Sad to hear that the newer and more powerful game has canned game play and not the free range feel of the older BFs.

With the supposed PS2 backward compatibility of the Star Wars bundle was considering getting a PS4 just for this game but now think I'll wait to see if we ever get PS3 compatibility.
 
Dascoyne, thanks for that info. Sad to hear that the newer and more powerful game has canned game play and not the free range feel of the older BFs.

With the supposed PS2 backward compatibility of the Star Wars bundle was considering getting a PS4 just for this game but now think I'll wait to see if we ever get PS3 compatibility.
I wouldn't call it completely canned, but it certainly isn't as open as BF2. You can still go anywhere but there's less incentive to stray other than to flank the enemy for engagement.
In the beginning I tried to sneak around and capture a far CP but, when I arrived, the CP was inactive and nobody was there. I had to scramble back to the two central CPs and join the brawl.

Again, this is better for console owners but, as a PC player, I want open world fighting with 40-60 players plus bots to make it a full out war.

I have to remind myself this is just a different game - It's still great but different.
 
Walker Assault in the beta played more like Battlefield's Rush mode, which is actually my favorite mode to play in those games. The major downside is that people have to PTFO instead of just sniping, which can prove problematic at times. But that's been true in every iteration of that game mode I've ever played. Some people just want an interactive shooting gallery.

I think the real problem was the random spawns and the lack of spawn protection (e.g., you can get killed half a tick after you spawn). That and the fact that many of the spawns are a little too far back from where the action is.
 
This thread is more than 6 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top