FC Forums

I recommend getting a free game.

Been there, done that.

Saw it, got it, too bad it happened a few good years ago before it was actually free ... Well guess it is impossible to get your hands on a fresh game like that for free. I believe they do this because they are basically ready to move on to their next BF title as some leaked battlelog files show, they are slowly starting to release them with CoDly frequency which is gonna yield EA quite a few bucks prob but in turn tick off the few of us true gamers who are left on this Earth as it will be the same game over and over again at best or crappier and crappier at worst.

I read an interesting article about why the game industry is dying like it is, it's all about money, and how the big game companies have to stick with what they know will sell good or they might go bankrupt, that's why they try to cram out as much money as possible and never take the risk of trying something new.

Daynel, just what would you describe as 'new'? Because in my eyes it's not a question of whether companies are willing to try any of the rapidly disappearing 'fresh' ideas in the market, it's that consumers aren't willing to make the leap required to justify the risk. Take Titanfall, for example, and all the crap it gets for being what it is. That aside, the fact of the matter is there quite literally isn't any ground that hasn't been trodden when it comes to gaming, either by indies or by other development studios in the past decade. You stick to the tried and proven FPS formula because anything else gets you called out as a copycat (looking at you, Iv) and it's something consumers have proven time and time they're up for buying.

In this matter I don't think there's anyone to blame but the finite nature of game ideas and the customer himself.

New ideas (if there are any) are great.

Unfortunately, many "gamers" suffer the "they changed it, now it sucks" mentality. Thus, companies go for what they know will sell, instead of evee considering something that might lose revenue.

Hence why devoted indie devs are truly amazing people since their games aren't restrained by cash issues (at least as much some Devs really push the dollar) so that's where you see the real new stuff get implemented because they have nothing to lose.

Yet more often than not they lose.

Chairman_Tiel wrote:Yet more often than not they lose.

Yes but it's a great ride while it lasts.

Also fuck I just got this game a year ago

Also Tiel progress is not just new concept, HELL MAKE A FKING PROPER DESTRUCTIVE ENVIORNMENT ALREADY ! BC2 was a good step in that direction and then BF3 came out and we went back to ground 0, yeah BF4 had some big explosions and stuff but eventually they weren't as specific as in BC2 where you took out specific walls rather than a whole building (And ofc with enoguh walls the building itself too. If a company manages to make a game with big environments like BF4 to fall apart like BC2 it will already become a great game.

Still waiting for BF 2143

Iv121 wrote:Also Tiel progress is not just new concept, HELL MAKE A FKING PROPER DESTRUCTIVE ENVIORNMENT ALREADY ! BC2 was a good step in that direction and then BF3 came out and we went back to ground 0, yeah BF4 had some big explosions and stuff but eventually they weren't as specific as in BC2 where you took out specific walls rather than a whole building (And ofc with enoguh walls the building itself too. If a company manages to make a game with big environments like BF4 to fall apart like BC2 it will already become a great game.

Fully destructable environments aren't what made BC2 a great game. Progress is entirely subjective - in the eyes of the developers I imagine the use of much more discrete map deformation was a 'good step in that direction' by opening up the game to players with lower-end computers while still allowing them to ramp up their graphics engine (and if they just stuck with Frostbite 1.5 visuals it would be all "oh nooo, is COD style release!" would it not?). Don't like it? Don't buy it, because lack of consumer feedback is what inspires them to go on to make shiny turds like BF4. As long as a publisher's pockets are being filled following the advice of market analysts, guess what? They're going to keep hanging on their every word and ordering their subordinate development houses to do the same.

Industry responds to demand.

BF4 is complete *, but it sells. So they'll keep making it.

Well what can I say ? I didn’t buy it at least, BF3 was enough for me. Those destructive environments were really important in BC2 gameplay in my opinion and the devs thought so too as it seems, note the single player design in BC2, a lot of the engagements are using the destructive environments to give the player more tactical choice.