Welcome to symthic forums! We would love if you'd register!
You don't have to be expert in bit baking, everyone is more than welcome to join our community.

You are not logged in.

Hey! If this is your first visit on symthic.com, also check out our weapon damage charts.
Currently we have charts for Battlefield 3, Call of Duty: Black Ops 2, Medal of Honor: Warfighter and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3

Posts: 796

Date of registration
: Dec 3rd 2014

Platform: PS4

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 9

  • Send private message

11

Sunday, October 8th 2017, 6:33pm

I can't play BF1 anymore since one of the patches made my ping go from 14 to a consistent 180, I decided to check out the BF2 beta to see if my connection problems were on my end. Strangely enough, the beta works perfectly without a hitch, meaning I have been officially screwed out BF1 (and the season pass I foolishly bought) by some change to the game.

I actually really enjoyed the beta. Sure it's not as deep as Battlefield, and probably won't last as long, but the game is pretty solid objective based fun. The simplicity also seems to mean my team mates feel less useless than they did in BF. The classes are all fun and nothing seemed to be remarkably broken or OP to me (although I do hope this site has some interest in the game once it launches so I can get exact numbers and expert opinions). I love the battlepoint system awarding small amounts for every action and the way different vehicles and units can be balanced around their cost, rather than who jumps into it at the start of the match. It also neatly avoids BF1's vehicle balance problems. The space combat is also pretty much a faithful upgrade of the space battles from PS2 Battlefront 2 as well.

So as long as BF1 continues to be unplayable I'll be sticking with this I think.

VincentNZ

Holy War? No Thanks.

(2,088)

Posts: 2,586

Date of registration
: Jul 25th 2013

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 14

  • Send private message

12

Tuesday, October 10th 2017, 2:28pm

I ponder how much of "data-driven design" they do in DICE/EA/big companies, and how effective it is really. Nowadays there seems to be quite a bit of "data science" positions where people gather data and try to infer usable information out from it.

There has been pictures and piece of info that they gather all kinds of telemetry (e.g. the locations of deaths in BF1 campaign), but how exactly this can be improved the game on average still requires good designers, I would imagine.

Maybe this is partly the reason of slow increments in big games? Data/statistics show it works, and they only adjust small portions of it, possibly selling more of the game on average while game itself seeming duller.

I would imagine companies would much rather do these small-but-certain increments instead of moonshots which could lead to revolutionize the scene. Sadly, the latter is something some of us customers would really like.


Yeah I think this hits the nail on the head really. If you are driven by anonymous data and the results you interpreted from it, you leave only little room for your own thinking, risk-taking and development. When you want to be creative and crazy you will be hit in the face by data telling you that with every inch you move away from the telemetry it will sell less copies. I believe this is why real fresh gameplay hits and visions will not be developed by major studios, but by independent gaming developers.

Further if you are only relying on stats and numbers you are also still relying on the interpretations of these numbers. If these are flawed and the "wrong" conclusions are drawn it can be very harmful.

Personally BF2 was dead within 5 minutes of starting the game for a couple of really simple reasons. While I can invite more than one friend into a group, this rarely works, the UI is still bugged out as hell since they went away from battlelog, it still binds in heavily to this nuisance they call Origin and even if we manage to play together on a server, I can not actually play with my friends because the game scrambles us up randomly with every death. Imagine how dead BF would be if they did this there.

Gameplay wise I make the same accusations as with BF1. It is just a mongrel of a game that does not know what it wants to be, so what we get is a half-assed bastard of unknown heritage, somewhere between a BF game, a casual shooter and a MOBA-Shooter.

I suppose it can be meaningless fun to play, but then you have dubious choices like the lootboxes to monetarize a franchise game even further. The first Battlefront gave DICE a bad reputation, and while this one seems better in many instances it does horribly wrong in other parts. We will see what they will do next year with the new BF iteration as flagship, but I am not overly confident in them delivering a game that is remotely as satisfying as the games they made before 2014 (excluding Mirror's Edge 2!).