WAR STORIES Pros Cons Solutions

2

Comments

  • JoeyScarpia
    1 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Honestly I could not agree more with the posts in this forum. They need to make a actual time period accurate story that is impactful without involving modern politics, sort of like Saving Private Ryan where sanity came into question and it was survival of the fittest. It should not be about the 2,000 women on the soviet front. What I want is a true band of brothers experience without adding massive amounts of SJW's. And also why cant Dice get the fact that some people just want to play a story as normal German infantry, whether you agree with what the ****'s did or not you have to admit a un-biased story of a infantryman would be awesome.
  • warslag
    1328 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    TFBisquit wrote: »
    Sp campaigns are meant to give players an idea about the characters ingame and to create some atmosphere. GTAV was a good example of this, the sp created alot of hype and encouraged players to go online. Now ofcourse Battlefield was never good in the sp part, but I found warstories highly entertaining.
    So lets hope this one is entertaining also.

    GTA V is just miles out there ahead of any recent Battlefield in terms of GTA V's massive, epic, brilliant, classic, story mode, online co-op mode and of course the just colossal range of free roam PvP, PvE, modding etc. etc.

    I don't think you can compare Battlefield and GTA V as Battlefield is a far more frequent release. Whereas, GTA is like an 'extinction-level-event' in gaming.

    Even Red or Dead Redemption 2 is bigger than Battlefield as a game vs game. I'm not talking in terms of any corporate measure of success, either, as I don't know the sales figures.

    If DICE announced that a direct remake of BF2 was in the works and that they had completely "nailed it" that would be on the same level as hearing about GTA VI.

    If this seemed like I swooped down on you I didn't mean it to be like that. I have been playing GTA V again recently and it's just a colossal achievement of a game and I wanted to lend my perspective.
  • Cpt_McRon
    75 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member


    JackFrags is stating here what I was talking about in my OP and sadly as we could expect from BF1 war stories'son, we will not experience deep feelings and links with our characters and the others of the stories.
    Why ? I explaned it in the OP

    Mission too short, lacks of different characters (acting as a lonewolf in the campaign missions or with friends that are more bots than real characters and so on). It's like they didn't want to have a proper campaign and give use something just to say "yeah we have a solo campaign mode". But in reality there's less ressources to do a good thing and battlefields to battlefields we're getting less and less quantity and quality campaign mode.

    It should be the opposite, their biggest opposent isn't even presenting a campaign mode this year, they should take the opportunity to rally the solo mode community to their game but they don't.

    Or they didn't want to have a true good campaign mode like olds BFs, CODs, or games that are even more good in that aspect (like MGS franchise) OR they don't know what's a good solo mode...

    It's not complicated the main factors are:
    - Interesting stories
    - Deep relations with the differents characters
    - Long time to achieve campaign, a long and deep experience
    - Historical inspirations


    I'm stopping here because one more time I see a game with huge and I mean HUGE possibilities wasted here. Idk if it's DICE or EA or anything that gave us this but it seems they do whatever they can to don't have a real complete and beautiful game.
  • Sixclicks
    5073 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    An EA employee said on another war stories thread recently that they should each be longer than the BF1 war stories at about 1 to 2 hours each depending on how you play them.
  • warslag
    1328 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    An EA employee said on another war stories thread recently that they should each be longer than the BF1 war stories at about 1 to 2 hours each depending on how you play them.

    That must be because of Tides of War and the SP being updated seasonally?
  • Bluemoon2393
    166 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    So we now know a little bit more about the War Stories.

    The Norwegian story is basically a Norwegian girl trying to rescue her mother and to make it difficult for the Germans to produce Nuclear weapons.

    The French story is about the Senegalese soldiers who fought for Free France. I would imagine the Gun being pointed at the enemy Is either a German soldier or a French collaborator (The Traitors who served Vichy France) . It's interesting how the other soldier tells him to put down the gun.

    The British story is basically another Convicted criminal serving the UK instead off being thrown in jail. I guess it will be like Blackburn's story in BF1.

    The German story that's coming out will sure bring out some controversy. If they make the story to be like Claus Von Stauffenberg (9 out 10 most likely) then it would probably help show that they were Germans who hated ****. And stood up against him. It will be like Valkyrie the film. Anyone who hasn't watched it. Watch it. It's a good film.
  • DarkestHour138
    992 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Cpt_McRon wrote: »


    JackFrags is stating here what I was talking about in my OP and sadly as we could expect from BF1 war stories'son, we will not experience deep feelings and links with our characters and the others of the stories.
    Why ? I explaned it in the OP

    Mission too short, lacks of different characters (acting as a lonewolf in the campaign missions or with friends that are more bots than real characters and so on). It's like they didn't want to have a proper campaign and give use something just to say "yeah we have a solo campaign mode". But in reality there's less ressources to do a good thing and battlefields to battlefields we're getting less and less quantity and quality campaign mode.

    It should be the opposite, their biggest opposent isn't even presenting a campaign mode this year, they should take the opportunity to rally the solo mode community to their game but they don't.

    Or they didn't want to have a true good campaign mode like olds BFs, CODs, or games that are even more good in that aspect (like MGS franchise) OR they don't know what's a good solo mode...

    It's not complicated the main factors are:
    - Interesting stories
    - Deep relations with the differents characters
    - Long time to achieve campaign, a long and deep experience
    - Historical inspirations


    I'm stopping here because one more time I see a game with huge and I mean HUGE possibilities wasted here. Idk if it's DICE or EA or anything that gave us this but it seems they do whatever they can to don't have a real complete and beautiful game.

    Battlefield community: "Dice listen to YouTubers too much and they change the game based on their opinion, this sucks"

    Later Battlefield community: "See, the YouTuber said the game isn't good, this sucks"

    It perplexes me that you see so many players complain about YT creators and their opinion and then they site their opinion on a different topic as fact. Jack didn't like the War Stories and that's clear, but they also only got to play about 45 minutes of them. You throw his video up as proof but then disregard that some other creators, like Westie and Lossy, both praised them.
  • TacticulBacon
    294 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    I don't really think MP focused games should have SP mode at all. It's just waste of time for both developers and players. And let's be honest here bf didn't have an enjoyable SP since Bad Company.

    Dice has shown time and time again that they can't produce an interesting or enjoyable single player that's worth your time over multiplayer. They just need to stop wasting their time and focus their efforts on what battlefield is best known for.

    As a person who started on Halo, I've always had soft spots for for first person shooters with a good single player. Which is why Battlefield campaigns have always infuriated me. If you don't invest the time and effort in creating good AI, level design, pacing, story telling, etc., for a decent campaign mode, why bother in the first place? It's a complete waste of time for the developers to half-**** a singleplayer mode and a waste of time for the players to sit through and play that boring garbage.
  • Matty101yttam
    696 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 2018
    Personally i think they need to go the other way with singleplayer, rather than a campaign with the same character, have a bunch of single missions with no story whatsoever, like the old aircraft sims. You select a scenario,add some difficulty modifiers(more troops/armour), read the mission brief and outlines, maybe select your gear and customise your squad, invite friends for some co-op and drop into the missions.

    The problem i've had with bf singleplayer has always been twofold
    1, Why cant i have friends with me rather than some AI
    2, Where is the vehicles, people love using vehicles to cause carnage but the bf singleplayers are always 90% on foot.

    The other thing they need is MORE MAPS...the singleplayers are too short, and multiplayer has no where near enough, give us 20+ maps/scenarios and you have a great game, even if there's bad maps people can play the ones they like.

    If they want depth for a scenario based singleplayer then have a base that you can launch missions from, where you can also try weapons and vehicles before missions and have the whole base upgradable from missions by direct success or finding randomly generated supply caches in missions. It could be base improvements like camo netting, emplaced mg's, tanks, planes, kit for your squad, maybe some trophy type things for achievements.
    I've always enjoyed seeing an environment change for the better as i play and progress rather than a few pictures of medals, and if you still want some emotional depth have the people around the base talk to you or each other and you can slowly learn about them and what they are going through.
    If you then wanted some more twists, have the base be raided once in a while to make it more real, then your defenses and upgrades come into play, or while talking to a character you regularly interact with a bullet punches through their head in the opening shots of a raid.
    Oh and one last thing, have a professional military sounding mission brief/debrief voice actor, not a smart mouth or an over confident type, but like the original ghost recon voice actor, i still remember the words "welcome to tiblisi gentlemen"
  • Ferdinand_J_Foch
    3098 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 2018
    warslag wrote: »

    If DICE announced that a direct remake of BF2 was in the works and that they had completely "nailed it" that would be on the same level as hearing about GTA VI.

    Let's not kid ourselves ... if they remade BF2, it wouldn't do very well by modern AAA standards. It might attract some interest, maybe from the few thousand people who even remember the existence of BF2, but it would end up with 500-2000 daily concurrent players in a matter of weeks, just like Rising Storm 2, Red Orchestra 2, SQUAD, Post Scriptum, Insurgency Sandstorm, and other 'hardcore, tactical' shooters. They all had a massive reception, but barely anyone plays them now. Imagine a BF game with 2000 daily concurrent players; it would be termed as an epic disaster.

    It's quite interesting to see that BF2 is seen as a part of a 'golden age' of Battlefield ... and yet, it was one of the lowest selling Battlefield games of all time. It only managed to sell 2.25 million copies.

    Total BF sales figures: http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/Battlefield#cite_note-battlefield-0

    Even Battlefield 1942 has managed to sell more copies (2.47 million) than BF2 ... and that came out four years prior to BF2. But what, you might say ... wouldn't sales figures from back then naturally be lower than they are now? Games clearly didn't sell as much back then, right? Well ...

    Let's talk about another EA game released in 2005: Need for Speed Most Wanted, another game seen as a part of a golden age for it's franchise. Guess how many copies it sold? 16 million. We can't quite say that the 'market didn't exist back then', can we? Most Wanted was actually the highest selling NFS game of all time, whereas BF2 was one of the lowest.

    In fact, a year after BF2's release, DICE was in pretty bad shape: http://web.archive.org/web/20061013164910/www.dice.se/PDF.aspx?article=0a204e8e-a1a6-434d-894f-b8d9147750b7

    A remade BF2 would be seen as far too difficult for the typical BF and FPS fan today. Hell, we technically have a remade BF2, by the name of Project Reality, but they have less than a thousand players daily. A BF2-like game would also die very quickly on console.

    Even CoD 3 outsold BF2, for goodness' sake: https://www.statista.com/statistics/321374/global-all-time-unit-sales-call-of-duty-games/

    Clearly, the FPS market has changed after the release of CoD4.

    EDIT: For anyone who wants to see how 'successful' a combined arms hardcore tactical shooter really is in the modern market:

    https://steamspy.com/app/393380 - SQUAD sales figures: 500,000 -1,000,000
    https://steamspy.com/app/418460 - Rising Storm 2 sales figures: 500,000 - 1,000,000
    https://steamspy.com/app/736220 - Post Scriptum sales figures: 50,000 - 100,000
  • Sixclicks
    5073 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 2018
    warslag wrote: »

    If DICE announced that a direct remake of BF2 was in the works and that they had completely "nailed it" that would be on the same level as hearing about GTA VI.

    Let's not kid ourselves ... if they remade BF2, it wouldn't do very well by modern AAA standards. It might attract some interest, maybe from the few thousand people who even remember the existence of BF2, but it would end up with 500-2000 daily concurrent players in a matter of weeks, just like Rising Storm 2, Red Orchestra 2, SQUAD, Post Scriptum, Insurgency Sandstorm, and other 'hardcore, tactical' shooters. They all had a massive reception, but barely anyone plays them now. Imagine a BF game with 2000 daily concurrent players; it would be termed as an epic disaster.

    It's quite interesting to see that BF2 is seen as a part of a 'golden age' of Battlefield ... and yet, it was one of the lowest selling Battlefield games of all time. It only managed to sell 2.25 million copies.

    Total BF sales figures: http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/Battlefield#cite_note-battlefield-0

    Even Battlefield 1942 has managed to sell more copies (2.47 million) than BF2 ... and that came out four years prior to BF2. But what, you might say ... wouldn't sales figures from back then naturally be lower than they are now? Games clearly didn't sell as much back then, right? Well ...

    Let's talk about another EA game released in 2005: Need for Speed Most Wanted, another game seen as a part of a golden age for it's franchise. Guess how many copies it sold? 16 million. We can't quite say that the 'market didn't exist back then', can we? Most Wanted was actually the highest selling NFS game of all time, whereas BF2 was one of the lowest.

    In fact, a year after BF2's release, DICE was in pretty bad shape: http://web.archive.org/web/20061013164910/www.dice.se/PDF.aspx?article=0a204e8e-a1a6-434d-894f-b8d9147750b7

    A remade BF2 would be seen as far too difficult for the typical BF and FPS fan today. Hell, we technically have a remade BF2, by the name of Project Reality, but they have less than a thousand players daily. A BF2-like game would also die very quickly on console.

    Even CoD 3 outsold BF2, for goodness' sake: https://www.statista.com/statistics/321374/global-all-time-unit-sales-call-of-duty-games/

    Clearly, the FPS market has changed after the release of CoD4.

    EDIT: For anyone who wants to see how 'successful' a combined arms hardcore tactical shooter really is in the modern market:

    https://steamspy.com/app/393380 - SQUAD sales figures: 500,000 -1,000,000
    https://steamspy.com/app/418460 - Rising Storm 2 sales figures: 500,000 - 1,000,000
    https://steamspy.com/app/736220 - Post Scriptum sales figures: 50,000 - 100,000

    I think you also need to consider that BF2 was only on PC. While NFS:MW was on consoles and PC. Also, Battlefield wasn't really a big name in gaming at the time either. In fact, I never really heard about it from anyone other than a single friend who happened to let me play it on his PC which eventually led to me buying it. Nowadays pretty much everyone knows the Battlefield name. I was pretty young back then (13-14), but as far as I remember, PC gaming in terms of shooters was all about Counter Strike Source at the time.

    CS:S, a PC only game, has 14.1 million sales.
  • ragnarok013
    2350 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    I don't really think MP focused games should have SP mode at all. It's just waste of time for both developers and players. And let's be honest here bf didn't have an enjoyable SP since Bad Company.

    I actually enjoyed BF3's and BF4's SP campaigns. That being said I agree with you about SP taking dev resources that I'd rather have used to make a better multiplayer since MP is the quintessential Battlefield experience.
  • Cpt_McRon
    75 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member

    Battlefield community: "Dice listen to YouTubers too much and they change the game based on their opinion, this sucks"

    Later Battlefield community: "See, the YouTuber said the game isn't good, this sucks"

    It perplexes me that you see so many players complain about YT creators and their opinion and then they site their opinion on a different topic as fact. Jack didn't like the War Stories and that's clear, but they also only got to play about 45 minutes of them. You throw his video up as proof but then disregard that some other creators, like Westie and Lossy, both praised them.

    I'm enough intelligent to make my own opinion on different things, and if you see my original post it discribe everything before a youtuber do it. i'm just taking jackfrags videos as proof.
    And I'm not only taking his impressions because I have my own ones, I'm taking the video itelf, it literally show missions as a lonewolf, no teammates with you, just a map, enemy bots and objectives. It's far more close to a coop mission where you don't need to have a bot team with you because you're with your friends and you want to make things in your own way. In a solo/campaign mode it should be more immersive and alive with differents characters, it should be more narrative.
  • warslag
    1328 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    warslag wrote: »

    If DICE announced that a direct remake of BF2 was in the works and that they had completely "nailed it" that would be on the same level as hearing about GTA VI.

    Let's not kid ourselves ... if they remade BF2, it wouldn't do very well by modern AAA standards. It might attract some interest, maybe from the few thousand people who even remember the existence of BF2, but it would end up with 500-2000 daily concurrent players in a matter of weeks, just like Rising Storm 2, Red Orchestra 2, SQUAD, Post Scriptum, Insurgency Sandstorm, and other 'hardcore, tactical' shooters. They all had a massive reception, but barely anyone plays them now. Imagine a BF game with 2000 daily concurrent players; it would be termed as an epic disaster.

    It's quite interesting to see that BF2 is seen as a part of a 'golden age' of Battlefield ... and yet, it was one of the lowest selling Battlefield games of all time. It only managed to sell 2.25 million copies.

    Total BF sales figures: http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/Battlefield#cite_note-battlefield-0

    Even Battlefield 1942 has managed to sell more copies (2.47 million) than BF2 ... and that came out four years prior to BF2. But what, you might say ... wouldn't sales figures from back then naturally be lower than they are now? Games clearly didn't sell as much back then, right? Well ...

    Let's talk about another EA game released in 2005: Need for Speed Most Wanted, another game seen as a part of a golden age for it's franchise. Guess how many copies it sold? 16 million. We can't quite say that the 'market didn't exist back then', can we? Most Wanted was actually the highest selling NFS game of all time, whereas BF2 was one of the lowest.

    In fact, a year after BF2's release, DICE was in pretty bad shape: http://web.archive.org/web/20061013164910/www.dice.se/PDF.aspx?article=0a204e8e-a1a6-434d-894f-b8d9147750b7

    A remade BF2 would be seen as far too difficult for the typical BF and FPS fan today. Hell, we technically have a remade BF2, by the name of Project Reality, but they have less than a thousand players daily. A BF2-like game would also die very quickly on console.

    Even CoD 3 outsold BF2, for goodness' sake: https://www.statista.com/statistics/321374/global-all-time-unit-sales-call-of-duty-games/

    Clearly, the FPS market has changed after the release of CoD4.

    EDIT: For anyone who wants to see how 'successful' a combined arms hardcore tactical shooter really is in the modern market:

    https://steamspy.com/app/393380 - SQUAD sales figures: 500,000 -1,000,000
    https://steamspy.com/app/418460 - Rising Storm 2 sales figures: 500,000 - 1,000,000
    https://steamspy.com/app/736220 - Post Scriptum sales figures: 50,000 - 100,000

    I looked up sales figures for games after reading your post and Pokémon was top on $70bn.

    GTA was way down the list on $8.5bn. But I still consider GTA V to be better than Pokémon.

    Battlefield was further down the lis on $3bn. I also consider Battlefield to be a better game than Pokémon.

    I did say in the my reply to the other poster which you quoted that I hadn't looked up the sales figures. But it turns out I was actually kind of right.

    BF2 is a much bigger game than the sales figures portray.
  • DarkestHour138
    992 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    If you go back to your previous post you state:
    Cpt_McRon wrote: »

    It's not complicated the main factors are:
    - Interesting stories
    - Deep relations with the differents characters
    - Long time to achieve campaign, a long and deep experience
    - Historical inspirations

    Obviously Dice is trying to check those boxes. If you read the blog they chose historical inspirations for their war stories and which they believe are interesting stories. They also use native language to try to make you feel more immersed with the story and the character, as stated in the blog.

    The lone wolf stories are driven by the narrative. You wouldn't want an army of friends charging into the heavy water plant when you're trying to be stealthy. And the Tirailleur story follows the unit, so you're not lone wolfing it in all the stories.

    The length of the stories (1-2 hrs each) would be the only real concern then. And as I said in a previous post I just don't think they have the resources to make that happen.

    On a side note: some of the maps I saw in the campaign look fantastic and I hope they get brought over to MP.
  • Cpt_McRon
    75 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    If you go back to your previous post you state:
    Cpt_McRon wrote: »

    It's not complicated the main factors are:
    - Interesting stories
    - Deep relations with the differents characters
    - Long time to achieve campaign, a long and deep experience
    - Historical inspirations

    1) Obviously Dice is trying to check those boxes. If you read the blog they chose historical inspirations for their war stories and which they believe are interesting stories. They also use native language to try to make you feel more immersed with the story and the character, as stated in the blog.

    2) The lone wolf stories are driven by the narrative. You wouldn't want an army of friends charging into the heavy water plant when you're trying to be stealthy. And the Tirailleur story follows the unit, so you're not lone wolfing it in all the stories.

    3) The length of the stories (1-2 hrs each) would be the only real concern then. And as I said in a previous post I just don't think they have the resources to make that happen.

    On a side note: some of the maps I saw in the campaign look fantastic and I hope they get brought over to MP.

    1) Yes here we're agree on one point, but they don't develop enough to make you have feelings for you character.

    2) I don't want a whole army, I want to have a squad it can be soldiers, it can be resistance fighters, it can be family members, it can be friend of your character or whatever you want. But we need to have the feeling to new friends when we go play a campaign mode. We need characters that make us feel like we recognize some of our friends in the story of the game.
    The best game I can state here is Metal Gear Solid saga, because of course it's designed for a campaign mode not like BF franchise started back in 2002. But trhough the years battlefield started to have better and better again campaign modes. But everything fall with BF1...
    Back to MGS, this saga was made all around differents characters. Each one beeing worked and personalized that they became real persons. When you had a cinematic with these characters it was deep, you could understand what they thought just by looking the character because you experienced a whole part of your time playing the game and discovering their natures and their personnality. You didn't only played a game while playing MGS, you were living an experience. That's the difference with war stories of BF1 and BFV.

    3) 2 hours of play is only an introduction for the different character and I'm not sure that even at maximum level, a war story will last 2 hours. A minimum if you want players to start to create a link with their character is a 8 hours experience with it. I'm agree with you, I think they didn't have the ressources for it. I don't blame the developpers because I think (if they have the ambition and the will i have) that they perhaps wanted to make something great but the boss that split and gave the ressources and take the decisions doesn't even know what's good for a solo mode... I don't even know if the guy taking the decision / giving the ressources played a real good campaign mode in his life.

    4) One more thing that is really important and I didnt stated how much it's obvious: the AI. Between a bad and an excellent AI it makes everything changing. More the AI is comporting as humans will do, more it will be immersive and more the game will be better. A good exemple I encountered recently is Sniper Elite 4 in authentic mode. The AI isn't anymore following a determined circle of movements. The AI is searching you and hunting you down for the whole game. And the soldiers try to find you with every clues they can find and using all theirs senses (view and sounds particulary). You can play with them by shooting a target at the opposite side of the street so they go check the dead soldier or the are of the explosion and you can move away without beeing spotted and that's only a few example of what you can do with this AI.
    It's no more predicatable and it makes much more immersive and rewarding to play your mission
  • Ferdinand_J_Foch
    3098 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    warslag wrote: »
    warslag wrote: »

    If DICE announced that a direct remake of BF2 was in the works and that they had completely "nailed it" that would be on the same level as hearing about GTA VI.

    Let's not kid ourselves ... if they remade BF2, it wouldn't do very well by modern AAA standards. It might attract some interest, maybe from the few thousand people who even remember the existence of BF2, but it would end up with 500-2000 daily concurrent players in a matter of weeks, just like Rising Storm 2, Red Orchestra 2, SQUAD, Post Scriptum, Insurgency Sandstorm, and other 'hardcore, tactical' shooters. They all had a massive reception, but barely anyone plays them now. Imagine a BF game with 2000 daily concurrent players; it would be termed as an epic disaster.

    It's quite interesting to see that BF2 is seen as a part of a 'golden age' of Battlefield ... and yet, it was one of the lowest selling Battlefield games of all time. It only managed to sell 2.25 million copies.

    Total BF sales figures: http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/Battlefield#cite_note-battlefield-0

    Even Battlefield 1942 has managed to sell more copies (2.47 million) than BF2 ... and that came out four years prior to BF2. But what, you might say ... wouldn't sales figures from back then naturally be lower than they are now? Games clearly didn't sell as much back then, right? Well ...

    Let's talk about another EA game released in 2005: Need for Speed Most Wanted, another game seen as a part of a golden age for it's franchise. Guess how many copies it sold? 16 million. We can't quite say that the 'market didn't exist back then', can we? Most Wanted was actually the highest selling NFS game of all time, whereas BF2 was one of the lowest.

    In fact, a year after BF2's release, DICE was in pretty bad shape: http://web.archive.org/web/20061013164910/www.dice.se/PDF.aspx?article=0a204e8e-a1a6-434d-894f-b8d9147750b7

    A remade BF2 would be seen as far too difficult for the typical BF and FPS fan today. Hell, we technically have a remade BF2, by the name of Project Reality, but they have less than a thousand players daily. A BF2-like game would also die very quickly on console.

    Even CoD 3 outsold BF2, for goodness' sake: https://www.statista.com/statistics/321374/global-all-time-unit-sales-call-of-duty-games/

    Clearly, the FPS market has changed after the release of CoD4.

    EDIT: For anyone who wants to see how 'successful' a combined arms hardcore tactical shooter really is in the modern market:

    https://steamspy.com/app/393380 - SQUAD sales figures: 500,000 -1,000,000
    https://steamspy.com/app/418460 - Rising Storm 2 sales figures: 500,000 - 1,000,000
    https://steamspy.com/app/736220 - Post Scriptum sales figures: 50,000 - 100,000

    I looked up sales figures for games after reading your post and Pokémon was top on $70bn.

    GTA was way down the list on $8.5bn. But I still consider GTA V to be better than Pokémon.

    Battlefield was further down the lis on $3bn. I also consider Battlefield to be a better game than Pokémon.

    I did say in the my reply to the other poster which you quoted that I hadn't looked up the sales figures. But it turns out I was actually kind of right.

    BF2 is a much bigger game than the sales figures portray.

    Wouldn't there be more servers for BF2, then? You'd think there would be hundreds of servers or something, but I'm having a hard time finding servers after the Revive project got shut down. Then again, the only way to play BF2 nowadays is if you had an original disc from back in the day.

    Ultimately, for EA, the only thing that matters is money. They could make a fantastic game, but if the game doesn't make enough money for them, they'll consider it a failure.

    This has happened to so many franchises and developers. WipEout used to be a very prominent PlayStation franchise, but their last major release, WipEout 2048, didn't sell as well as Sony had hoped. Personally, I thought it was a great game, though it wasn't my favourite WipEout ever. Sony ended up shutting Studio Liverpool (WipEout's devs) down, just because one of their games didn't sell that well. The recent WipEout HD Fury remaster was actually made by a different developer, but they might end up sharing the same fate as Liverpool. Something even weirder happened to Burnout ... their last game, Paradise, was a major success, but they ended up gutting the franchise a year after it's release, though they were perfectly happy to release an overpriced and buggy 'remaster' of it this year.

    I think I gave off the wrong impression in my last post; even though I would struggle with adjusting to a BF2 style game, I'm not really opposed to it all. I'd actually like to give it a proper go, because I was a bit too young to play BF2 properly back in the day ... all I managed to do was aimlessly wander around and maybe shoot someone every once in a while, before complaining about faction locked equipment. I also enjoy playing Rising Storm 2 a lot, and play Insurgency every once in a while.

    In fact, there is another game franchise that I want to see 'return to it's roots' ... Need for Speed. You want Battlefield to be like BF2 all over again, and I want NFS to have, at the very least, the same handling model from Underground 1 to Carbon, if nothing else, but EA hasn't listened to us for years. It seems evident that they don't want to make another BF2, and it also seems evident that they don't want to make another Most Wanted.

    It genuinely seems that EA doesn't want to cater to BF2 fans. EA wants money over all else, so if there was serious money in the hardcore shooter market, why would they completely ignore it for over a decade? This is the same problem I face with NFS. I truly think that the older NFS games had superior handling, so I honestly don't understand why EA sticks with it's new messed up handling model, but the only thing that seems to make sense is that EA doesn't want to cater to older NFS fans ... it wants to cater to racing game fans that want simplistic and mindless chaos, rather than cars that are unique, authentic and can be mastered.

    They don't think older fans of their franchises are worth the effort. However, I don't really know if they'll refrain from making some sort of HD retexture of BF2 in the future ... Burnout Paradise's remaster apparently sold well, so who knows.
  • warslag
    1328 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    o:)

    BF3 was a remake of BF2, I think, and was obviously a better game in most ways. I really loved Close Quarters. I used to play drenched in sweat with adrenaline pumping all the time. But people hated it and said it "wasn't Battlefield".

    That shows that, even when producers know they've made something good, they still have to bin it because it's become divisive..

    Which means that the Battlefield player base must be made up of diasporas who all want different things, that aren't particularly well defined, and are usually based on nostalgia.

    These game are designed to appeal in some way to each of those interested parties but to also bring something different in terms of setting and gameplay.

    I probably started off with low expectations and was excited about BF2 because it seemed to be a combination of online gaming set in a theme based on popular Western war films.

    What really excited me about it was when someone said you can pick up people in helis, fly to an objective, and parachute out. I was also told about underslung vehicles from helis (which was incorrect, but anyway). It sounded amazing

    You can actually do all that stuff now in ARMA and GTA V but not in Battlefield.

    As for Wipeout. The original game was bundled with the PS1. I think there used to be, well I know there used to be, a strong association between rave culture and gaming, and Wipeout was that type of game. I seem to remember it had a famous soundtrack with Prodigy and 808 State? That was it's appeal as with a few other similar games. I remember there was an awesome game where you drove speedboats up lava rivers which was quite trippy. Maybe it just stopped making sense.

    The target age group for games was probably 18 upwards, ostensibly. That must have changed to something more like 8 to 25. That's the age group I think producers probably expect to play their games.

    I don't know why games aren't more intelligent and mature as it doesn't matter if you're old, you can still play video games.

    I think there has been a race to get to where we are now by trying to shift as much volume as possible. It's the same in films where there are prequels, sequels, remakes, spin-offs, but less original content.

    Or, maybe I'm just in the very fussy category. You can always just flip all this stuff. I really think Battlefield could be a much bigger and better game, though.

    Your posts are really good, by the way. Great clarity and well written. It's just me being thick.

    Sorry for off-topic.
  • Ferdinand_J_Foch
    3098 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    warslag wrote: »
    o:)

    BF3 was a remake of BF2, I think, and was obviously a better game in most ways. I really loved Close Quarters. I used to play drenched in sweat with adrenaline pumping all the time. But people hated it and said it "wasn't Battlefield".

    That shows that, even when producers know they've made something good, they still have to bin it because it's become divisive..

    Which means that the Battlefield player base must be made up of diasporas who all want different things, that aren't particularly well defined, and are usually based on nostalgia.

    These game are designed to appeal in some way to each of those interested parties but to also bring something different in terms of setting and gameplay.

    I probably started off with low expectations and was excited about BF2 because it seemed to be a combination of online gaming set in a theme based on popular Western war films.

    What really excited me about it was when someone said you can pick up people in helis, fly to an objective, and parachute out. I was also told about underslung vehicles from helis (which was incorrect, but anyway). It sounded amazing

    You can actually do all that stuff now in ARMA and GTA V but not in Battlefield.

    As for Wipeout. The original game was bundled with the PS1. I think there used to be, well I know there used to be, a strong association between rave culture and gaming, and Wipeout was that type of game. I seem to remember it had a famous soundtrack with Prodigy and 808 State? That was it's appeal as with a few other similar games. I remember there was an awesome game where you drove speedboats up lava rivers which was quite trippy. Maybe it just stopped making sense.

    The target age group for games was probably 18 upwards, ostensibly. That must have changed to something more like 8 to 25. That's the age group I think producers probably expect to play their games.

    I don't know why games aren't more intelligent and mature as it doesn't matter if you're old, you can still play video games.

    I think there has been a race to get to where we are now by trying to shift as much volume as possible. It's the same in films where there are prequels, sequels, remakes, spin-offs, but less original content.

    Or, maybe I'm just in the very fussy category. You can always just flip all this stuff. I really think Battlefield could be a much bigger and better game, though.

    Your posts are really good, by the way. Great clarity and well written. It's just me being thick.

    Sorry for off-topic.

    I suppose games have to be less complicated (in terms of mechanics) to appeal to as many people as possible. Pretty much every franchise that's been out there for a while either resorts to adding gimmicks, or making things a lot easier to 'pick up', so to say. If games were to be made with more care, they wouldn't take just one or two years to make, like games do nowadays.

    WipEout did start off as a minor product associated with rave culture, but it quickly became a franchise in it's own right. It was a solid system seller for Sony, until a quite disastrous title by the name of WipEout Fusion came out. This game had some cool features, such as upgrades and pilot backstories, but the game had a higher focus on over-the-top chaos and weapons use rather than pure racing. WipEout fans hated Fusion, and the next game, WipEout Pure, was seen as an absolute reboot that made things go back to the way they used to be, though with a somewhat different physics model that was more grounded in reality. The developers concocted a new story about 'behind-the-scenes corruption', which was the reason behind the chaos of Fusion. The developers talked about racing teams going bankrupt, excessive monetisation, consumer exploitation, illegal betting, and even the Tempest Bay Incident, which was an accident in which six racers dead. The world of Fusion seemed to be like a typical futuristic dystopia.

    It was interesting to see a game developer speak so terribly about a game that they had clearly put so much effort into, but I think they'd understood that Fusion was a terrible mistake. I just wish that the Pure backstory was put into the actual game rather than the game's website. Pure was succeeded by Pulse, which was also a great game, though it attracted controversy for it's DLC packs being $5 each, when Pure had much more free DLC. WipEout's PS3 debut, WipEout HD, was also great, and it even got an expansion pack. However, Sony did take a little too long to release 2048, and they should have released a PS3 version instead of making it a PS VITA exclusive. That might be why it didn't do as well, but I still think it was absolutely unfair for Sony to kill off Studio Liverpool, especially when the recent HD remake, the WipEout HD Omega Collection, did so well.

    It genuinely seems that a lot of my childhood franchises are either dead or in the process of dying ... Need for Speed, Burnout, Ridge Racer, Test Drive, WipEout, Killzone, Simbin's GTR series ... Gran Turismo has also shot itself in the foot with GT Sport, as if Polyphony is desperate to be an iRacing competitor ... and we don't even need to bring up Call of Duty.

    I guess I've gone off in a bit of a tangent myself ... still, I do appreciate that there are people, such as yourself, who take the time to read some of the longer posts around here.
  • afkmacro
    43 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Another vote for scrapping SP altogether.

    The longevity factor is in the multiplayer. A lot of people who go through the campaign only do it for the stuff you unlock for MP.

    Call of Duty recently scrapped their SP, hopefully Dice will realize the majority of people would buy the game regardless of if it had an SP portion or not.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!