Now that we're done with the BF5 women thing, can we talk about how stupid the customization and other stuff is?

[Syntaxvgm]

EA's fallout

(this is norway btw)
In addition to all the horrible outfits I didn't paste here with no helmets

We have
dot sights, which were a prototype thing but come on they werne't used nor were they useful

 

They are really shooting themselves in the foot, they are seriously tone deaf. The only thing saving this game is the fact that some are putting out short gameplay segments, which they have done in none of their marketing. There's actually some gameplay changes im interested in (new spotting system, for example), but really the only thing coming directly out of dice and EA is all the fluff stuff, no actual game to stand on.

 

Their idea of marketing this game, even after the first reveal backlash, was to continue to focus on the things that weren't popular and show no actual gameplay even though it would be open to some gameplay by journalists. This kinda shit is all people are talking about because if they're only consumed EAs and Dice's marketing, it's all they've been shown.

Seriously, their marketing is horrible, focusing on all the non ww2 things, calling it ww2, yet showing no gameplay to possibly, idk, make these things not literally all people talk about.

They could just show gameplay, call it "ww2 re imagined", and it would be doing a lot better right now. As I predicted, they're really just going loose with the whole thing, I wish they would have went with it officially and made it basically a 'ww2 fantasy' kinda thing.
And for the gameplay changes I see, I think a lot of them could be bad, but I haven't truly enjoyed a bf game solo since bfbc2, so different at all has the potential to be bad or good and I'm ok with them trying new things.
There's a reason I can still find plenty of BFBC2 servers on PC but bf1 is a barren wasteland practically. Right now there's a bfbc2 server list on the subreddit, and people are saying it's the sale or whatever, but it's seriously almost always like that. They need to focus on why that is and fix it instead of whatever this is.
After all, they admitted they dont have know what made it so popular a few years ago.

Quote

“It’s scary to go back and try to remake an old fan favorite when actually no-one can really put their finger on what it is people love. Bringing back the characters and creating a great single-player out of that, sure, I can understand that. But some people say this: the Bad Company 2 multiplayer is the best you’ve ever done. Okay, why is that? It’s hard for people to articulate what that is, which is actually hard for us. It would be hard to remake something like that.”
https://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/dice-knows-want-bad-company-just-dont-know/

[Princess Luna]

Weapon skins in CS:GO makes sense because that thing is as e-sports as it gets and that kind of looks is common on sports events, cool looking uniforms and what not...

 

But certain games like Ubisoft used to make with AC Unity and Syndicate for instance where you pay real money through micro-transactions to unlock an in-game outfit you'll only use briefly before tossing the game away from being bored of collecting 100 random useless feathers was the peak of nonsense.

[xXxAdamxXx]

EA's marketing is really bad.

[Syntaxvgm]

1 hour ago, Jonnyswboy said:

Why are you so mad about a red dot sight appearing in a video game? If it wasn't their you would be complaining about how WW2 doesn't facilitate enough customization. 

oh sure I would. I literally didn't bother with WAW on PC because of this.

I've literally complained for years that multiplayer shooting games have too much customization. I literally miss the days of games where they had a set of weapons you picked from on the spawn screen.

Fuck my favorite cod is cod2, and the custom map scene for even that game was nuts, play all day no map twice.

 

Anyway they'd be persecuted for not having them normally, but a fucking ww2 game is your one chance to get rid of that shit. Every gun kinda becomes the same if you put a dot sight on it, and half the reason they were there in the first place was low resolution tvs on 720p consoles, not a problem anymore. No one's gaming on CRT tvs anymore.

[dalekphalm]

1 hour ago, Jonnyswboy said:

Why are you so mad about a red dot sight appearing in a video game? If it wasn't their you would be complaining about how WW2 doesn't facilitate enough customization. 

To be fair, one of the arguments (not by @Syntaxvgm specifically though) by people who were "upset" about the woman in BFV, and why there wasn't a huge uproar about BF1, was because pretty much everything in BF1 "existed" at the time, even in prototype stages.

 

And it clearly says the Red Dot was available as a prototype in WW2.

 

Soooo.... I see no problems here.

 

As for the customization of skins, etc? I mean, it's a multiplayer shooter. What did people expect? This isn't a MilSim.

[Syntaxvgm]

Just now, dalekphalm said:

To be fair, one of the arguments (not by @Syntaxvgm specifically though) by people who were "upset" about the woman in BFV, and why there wasn't a huge uproar about BF1, was because pretty much everything in BF1 "existed" at the time, even in prototype stages.

 

And it clearly says the Red Dot was available as a prototype in WW2.

 

Soooo.... I see no problems here.

 

As for the customization of skins, etc? I mean, it's a multiplayer shooter. What did people expect? This isn't a MilSim.

half the guns in bf1 were like prototypes, but you cold argue some saw limited usage in later years.

I dont think that sight was literally ever used

I get the bf1 guns, as like a balance thing and people wouldn't have so much fun with like 90% bolts, but this is kinda unnecessary.
I hate this back in world at war, still hate it now.

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, Syntaxvgm said:

oh sure I would.

I've literally complained for years that multiplayer shooting games have too much customization. I literally miss the days of games where they had a set of weapons you picked from on the spawn screen.

Fuck my favorite cod is cod2, and the custom map scene for even that game was nuts, play all day no map twice.

 

Anyway they'd be persecuted for not having them normally, but a fucking ww2 game is your one chance to get rid of that shit. Every gun kinda becomes the same if you put a dot sight on it, and half the reason they were there in the first place was low resolution tvs on 720p consoles, not a problem anymore.

I can understand your point, but you're in the vast minority about customization. Most gamers these days want customization. That's why stupid worthless skins are so valued in modern games.

 

The trend, even if you dislike it, is more customization, not less. So while you specifically might have been okay with less customization, most people would be annoyed by it.

 

The lack of customization that you so cherish would likely lead to a stagnated game, because people would get bored because they can't unlock new customizations to keep things fresh.

[Syntaxvgm]

5 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

I can understand your point, but you're in the vast minority about customization. Most gamers these days want customization. That's why stupid worthless skins are so valued in modern games.

 

The trend, even if you dislike it, is more customization, not less. So while you specifically might have been okay with less customization, most people would be annoyed by it.

 

The lack of customization that you so cherish would likely lead to a stagnated game, because people would get bored because they can't unlock new customizations to keep things fresh.

shooting games became stagnated when all the way back they stopped allowing people to make their own maps. They killed off mod tools in favor of charging for very few maps, then they stopped even bothering with maps half the time, which either way fractures the player base

How do you think halo 3 and reach didn't die faster? Forge. It was shitty, but it was something and you could make cool game modes. Hell the only reason a lot of people played 3 over 2 was forge.

Dodn't even need forge. But we've killed of the idea of sdks for games entirely.

Communities can make stuff fun forever.

Cod2 was my favorite cod  but the base game wasn't that good. Didn't even have sprint. 100s of maps, and several popular mods. Most sprinting in modes like xtreme+ required you to put the gun away (slow to start) but you ran faster and longer, which was really cool for big custom maps.

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, Syntaxvgm said:

shooting games became stagnated when all the way back they stopped allowing people to make their own maps. They killed off mod tools in favor of charging for very few maps, then they stopped even bothering with maps half the time, which either way fractures the player base

Again, that's something you might feel, and I don't even necessarily disagree with you (community created maps are generally a benefit to a game), but most people don't seem to care that much about them. They're perfectly fine with customized skins, unlockable equipment/weapons, tiers/levels, etc.

 

Hell, the most popular game right now (Fortnite) has one map (Granted, that's a very specific game type, and does not apply to all genres).

 

I definitely dislike when new map packs are sold, because yes, it does fracture the multiplayer user base, though.

[PCGuy_5960]

Well to be fair, they didn't say that this is the most immersive WW2 game, they said that it's the most immersive Battlefield game so far, which is true. The game looks amazing, even in its pre-alpha stage.

 

Although TBH, this customization system would have worked a lot better if it was a modern day FPS game instead of WW2.

[Syntaxvgm]

Just now, dalekphalm said:

Again, that's something you might feel, and I don't even necessarily disagree with you (community created maps are generally a benefit to a game), but most people don't seem to care that much about them. They're perfectly fine with customized skins, unlockable equipment/weapons, tiers/levels, etc.

 

Hell, the most popular game right now (Fortnite) has one map (Granted, that's a very specific game type, and does not apply to all genres).

 

I definitely dislike when new map packs are sold, because yes, it does fracture the multiplayer user base, though.

fornite isn't about the level at all. it's about winning, the mechanics and building have a lot to them and more is added, and not just skins, and the map is HUGE anyway.

I think what I enjoyed most about games with mod tools is most of them had no online account stats anyway, no one took it seriously, and there was ALWAYS new stuff to do and fun people on dedicated servers to play with. New loadouts and skins is really weak content. A shitty GOB rat map was fun content. Next level? mario themed, fuck it.

I think it's more important than ever to try to bring that back when we've had 10+ years of shooting games being extremely popular in the mainstream (since cod4, halo3)
10 fucking years. I knew they were running out of shit in bo1 when they were using community made game modes and slapping their name on it, shit from COD and CS mods. Even napalm code was similar to a community mod, that's why it would hit you underground on the other side of the map sometimes. "Oh look, we added a gui to the console demo thing pc players always had for replays". After cod4 became so popular on consoles, the next few years was just treyarch bringing console up to parity with pc. COD4 had mod tools, pretty fun mods, but more people played on console obviously. WAW had them too, and until BO3 I think when they released them again people still played new zombie maps on WAW. I sill saw youtube videos with million plus views on new zombie maps like 5+ years later.
 

Imagine a full sdk or even a forge like thing (though again really not needed) for a battlefield game. So much you can do with that.I mean yea you gotta make money after the initial sale or make new games, but shit I'd pay a low cost subscription for that. If they made a game that was entirely community customizable for battlefield, I think they could get away with 30$ year 1 then 5$ or 10$ a month after idk.

Anyway back to sights, it makes all the guns look and feel the same, so it's not necessary really as it doesn't add new ways to play. Not like the types of guns for bf1. Not as bad as cod though, where all guns are about the same stat wise and everything fires like a laser so dot sights make all guns almost exact the same really. Mw2, as much as I loved it, any assault rifle kill in exactly 2 shots to the head or torso. (all took 2 to the head except unsilenced snipers really). So when you added dot sights, all guns were the same. ACR was meta but it was literally no better, in fact I think it had lower damage than most slightly. A bit less recoil but 2 shots killed so I guess it was easier to spray with maybe? It was the start of the all guns are the same problem. A problem we have nearly 10 years later. 10 years of nothing new in terms of traditional mp shooters and more and more games to spread out the audience over. No wonder games like PUBG and FN do so well, people wanted something new so bad. Even if in pubgs case it was changing up the match type...which as you know started as a..drumroll mod

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, dalekphalm said:

The lack of customization that you so cherish would likely lead to a stagnated game, because people would get bored because they can't unlock new customizations to keep things fresh.

Maybe I am weird, but "back in my days" we didn't have customization but we didn't get bored of games.

Unreal Tournament had 0 progression but I'd still consider it one of the greatest games of all time, and I have sunk an unhealthy amount of hours into that game. Same with CS 1.6, Quake 3, DOTA (1, not 2), Team Fortress 2, Battlefield 1942, Battlefield Vietnam, Battlefield 2, etc...

 

My point is that I don't think good games become stale even if there is no progression.

[dalekphalm]

5 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Maybe I am weird, but "back in my days" we didn't have customization but we didn't get bored of games.

Unreal Tournament had 0 progression but I'd still consider it one of the greatest games of all time, and I have sunk an unhealthy amount of hours into that game. Same with CS 1.6, Quake 3, DOTA (1, not 2), Team Fortress 2, Battlefield 1942, Battlefield Vietnam, Battlefield 2, etc...

 

My point is that I don't think good games become stale even if there is no progression.

Games have changed and evolved over time - perhaps you consider some of these changes negative - that's a personal choice.

 

For example, emphasis on Multiplayer, to the detriment of a single player campaign, is a change I personally consider terrible, since many game series that used to have great campaigns either lack them entirely now, or just have "token" campaigns that only last a few hours (looking at you, COD and Halo).

 

But, the reality is most people didn't give a shit about the COD campaigns anyway, and just played for multiplayer. So the fact that I think that's a shame, doesn't matter since most people think "finally they stopped wasting time on campaigns when everyone just plays multiplayer".

 

I agree that a lack of progression doesn't inherently mean the game is bad. But it's a gameplay feature that many people expect and want now.