Hello There, Guest!

17-03-2009, 05:29 PM | Post: #61
Salvenius. 
(17-03-2009 01:07 PM)Ben Cousins Wrote:  Great debate. Here's something else to throw into the mix:

How would your opinions be different if the game was identical to the one you are playing, but was not called 'Battlefield Heroes', but instead 'Fighting Heroes', and if the game was not developed by DICE but by some other EA studio? Remember, assume the game is identical.

Due to the way of me entering this beta and not already having experience within the battlefield heroes, they wouldn't differ, although now I do look for DICE made games and still contemplating on picking up the Battlefield anthology (Would grab Mirror's Edge but waiting for EA europe to get off their butts and put the game on steam >_< )

However, considering the angle you are going for. If the game had a different name and made by a different company but exactly identical games then I suppose it would be a "wait and see" kind of thing. If I got a key the same way I did (knew nothing about the game and blagged my way through an interview with Aleks to gain myself a key, only to currently clock 480 hours into said game) then yes my opinions wouldn't differ at all.

I suppose when you look at it, it's the same thing with BF vs CoD...each have a set of fans, some do play both franchises but each have their own set of fanboys. Personally neither are my cup of tea and BFH only appeals to me because it gives the "beginner shooter" chance to play, kill and win. Unlike the more...serious of games where people will literally run down your broadband connection and slit your throat in order to win against you.

I am a guy of Quake III and Unreal Tournament, two fast paced and chaotic games where anyone can jump in and cause mayhem...that to me sums up Battlefield Heroes.

As to anyone who compares to it to TF2...don't. I have played TF2 and although it is a good game, it is way out of Battlefield Heroes' league

Some Koalas just want to watch the world burn. Don't feed The Dark Koala aka TPang.
[Image: Salv_Sig.png]
I am a Community Moderator, not an official EA Representative
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
17-03-2009, 06:21 PM | Post: #62
Alfred E. Neuman 
I do get that point, Dr Fink, and it will work out that way if the millions join right away.

However, if we have to pull them in first we'd better make sure we have a smooth-running game to seduce them with. Chicken and egg. I'm for the chicken. Bwuk bwuk. Good luck all and good night.

Watch this space
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
17-03-2009, 06:50 PM | Post: #63
The_Engineer 
(17-03-2009 01:07 PM)Ben Cousins Wrote:  Great debate. Here's something else to throw into the mix:

How would your opinions be different if the game was identical to the one you are playing, but was not called 'Battlefield Heroes', but instead 'Fighting Heroes', and if the game was not developed by DICE but by some other EA studio? Remember, assume the game is identical.

There's a lot of power behind a name. It's because of the Battlefield name that so many people are looking into this game. The name assures a sense of quality and familiarity - you know it's not going to end up like so many of those other free games. I, for one, know that there would not be as much hype going for this game had it not been developed by DICE. I mean, you see it with the other trailers for those free Asian MMOS. They drag 1k views? Maybe 2k views?

Battlefield Heroes dragged 573k views.

[img]http://tf-2.fr/ach.php?a=Time's-a-wasting!&b=Enjoy your purchased Clothing items.&c=0&d=4&e=129&f=1[/img] (This post was last modified: 17-03-2009 06:51 PM by The_Engineer.)
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
17-03-2009, 07:00 PM | Post: #64
RedFoxNL 
Quote:. No VOIP. It is very hard to coordinate teamwork without in game voice over. Countless posts have been made on the subject and it would be a smart in game feature.


If you wanne use that they will ABUSE it like foul language or talking too much hard noice etc...

[Image: 2]
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
17-03-2009, 07:45 PM | Post: #65
MaskedMakrel 
@Ben,

I’d raise the same issues whether it was DICE or another EA division. The observations about challenges facing Heroes are not personal. I was also referencing what others have said online in chat or elsewhere in the forums. (TBH, though, I have noted when other games, non-DICE, messed around with the underlying class attributes or launched with few maps). Of course, no matter how good a game is, no game will ever be perfect. (Even Archon II had the Kraken).

Still, if it were not DICE, I doubt I would have read about "Fighter Heroes" in the NYT or about the beta through so many media sources.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
17-03-2009, 08:36 PM | Post: #66
Dr Fink 
Quote:Still, if it were not DICE, I doubt I would have read about "Fighter Heroes" in the NYT or about the beta through so many media sources.
thats not the point. The point is this game is not Battlefield 3.0, thats the point. This game is breaking new ground.

Its one part shooter, one part mmorpg ( yes rpg as you character is now an individual toon you can level, dress, and guide through development), one part asian free to play model. Its quite revolutionary actually.

If Dice can create some new great maps, pull them altogether in a meta game with weekly changing fronts based on wins/loses etc, my god, from what I have seen and played here. These guys are poised to change online gaming in the west.

I was fortunate enough to have a friend develop WOW and I remember after a few weeks of playing in alpha friends and family way back. I told him one day as we grouped together back then " you know this game is gonna have millions of players playing it? I said. He replied, " you are nuts, we will be happy with 500k and we'll see from there". I said, "I've played a bazillion betas and this is the best Ive seen and its only alpha..", he laughed and said if I am right, he's screwed since he was in charge of the whole back end infrastructure lol"

anyway, Ben and gang, for what its worth from this old beta and gamer veteran, your gonna have millions of players, hope you are ready.

Job well done.
(This post was last modified: 17-03-2009 08:38 PM by Dr Fink.)
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
17-03-2009, 08:40 PM | Post: #67
S3RR4T 
My main suggestions (and the ones of others that i support) are not rooted in my "BF roots" since I've only played 1942 and even that pretty briefly, although i liked what i saw.

The lack of certain features (or existing things i dont like) were pretty obvious right from the start i started playing this game (and that was like 6 days ago).

There seems to be a few basic needs missing, or existing but malfunctioning things in the game atm, which cripples certain other already existing features (Nothing unfixable though)
Since this is indeed a beta phase (and i've been in a few betas before) i know if there is a right time to improve the game i like (Yes i do^^), then this is it.
-For the good of everyone, because especially the casual crowd makes a judgement VERY fast and usually very extreme (the smallest annoyance or a few bugs can make a game the worst of all time, or the most minor good stuff.. usually eyecandy or something on the surface, can make it the best ever in their eyes.)
Thus going open in the best possible shape is the best interest of us all. -for the players to have people to play with (a.k.a. noobs to frag lol), and the devs to make some cash off of this experiment (not to mention the advertising potential that this project provides for the franchise as a whole).. oh and most of all: to make the game as fun as possible for the most people.

I have played a lot of games from lots of genres in the past (and the present) including various multiplayer fps games (like quake, ut, wolf:et, etqw, cod 4, tremulous <-the best damn mpgame idea ever.. for free; just to mention a few names)
And played with mapping/modding for the most of theese (nothing serious, but enough to know how the engines, mapdesign, gameflow works) and have a relatively broad insight of how games and gaming as a whole works.

While i see your point about many people being spoiled by the name battlefield, but you cannot avoid theese expectations toward the title.. because like it or not, but 'battlefield' IS the biggest "selling point" of this game, besides being free.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
17-03-2009, 10:42 PM | Post: #68
MaskedMakrel 
I am very optimistic about the games chances as well. It is not as serious as 2142, but I do take simple pleasure in throwing tanks and people around with blasting strike and using my emote taunts. It still needs some touch ups, but I do think many of my busiest friends will finally have the time to play a round or two of this because the rounds only last 5-10 minutes and it is a very funny game with a low learning curve. Plus you can play it on really low end systems, although you can't see the infantry for the trees! Wink And the costumes can be funny. So I agree that it has a lot to offer.

As for the NYT stuff, I agree that's not the point of it. If it weren't DICE, but another obscure studio, I probably would not have heard about the title. My point is there are lots of good games being developed that I probably haven't heard of and am not in the beta for. But I heard about this through lots of media sources, play BF games, and finally got into the Beta. I don't think that would have happened if it were not a DICE game.

As I said earlier, I am glad that DICE does not simply offer the same experience, but is willing to take risks with new directions. But s3rr4t is correct: expectations will be high.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2009, 01:07 AM | Post: #69
Niffer45 
(16-03-2009 02:39 AM)Hoffster Wrote:  Class balance issues are my biggest worry in this game, commandos are way overpowered and have to much HP to have so much power.

TOO MUCH HP!! TOO MUCH HP! im a level 8 commando, and i have 80 HP, when a lvl 1 gunner has 150! Well i think gunners are to overpowered, becuase they have 2 much hp! i mean seriously, Just becuase you cant hit us halfways across the map with your short range MG, and we can hit you doesnt mean were overpowerd

Yo dawg, I heard you like recources, so I put a planatary fortress in your base shooting chopsticks
[Image: 2vuh2cx.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2009, 02:18 AM | Post: #70
xyish 
(16-03-2009 11:18 AM)Ben Cousins Wrote:  First statement (I'm gonna bold this one) Battlefield Heroes is NOT designed for fans of the previous Battlefield games. It is designed to appeal to people who have never played a BF game before or who have maybe never played a shooter before. It really helps to understand the decisions we made to keep that goal in mind. If you are a hardcore BF player, I'm happy to see you playing the game, but you are not our main target audience.

I'd like to make a point regarding this. I'm not sure if casual gamers, or those who've never played a BF game, or even a shooter would find aircraft controls simple. While there is less of a penalty for crashing into the earth, the controls themselves may just seem a little intimidating for someone not familiar to previous BF games. And they will want to fly those planes after getting half their team wiped by a BF player well-versed in the art of good aircraft maneuvering and combat. In fact, there have been other shooters out there with simpler, more noob-friendly controls. That is not to say the game needs easier controls, but maybe that it should, since it is trying to cater to a less-than-hardcore audience. Just a thought.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2009, 02:41 AM | Post: #71
JohnChard 
Actually, that is a point. The aircraft is a bugger to handle for non BF-wallahs.

Perhaps have it so that the default is Left right up down for what is now the mouse controls, simplify the operation, make it easier to hit other planes (perhaps a slight auto-aim), and have it so that "W" is plane goes fast, "S" is plane slows, and not pressing anything makes it go at a slow, but not fall-out-of-the-sky-able speed (which is what "S" is for)

[Image: signatures.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2009, 03:07 AM | Post: #72
Lagwolf 
A couple of points not addressed. Spawns are rubbish at the moment...quite often spawing you in the midst of enemies or in front of a tank. Secondly the tutorial is pointless and does not do a good job at getting you up to speed. The flying part is especially bad.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2009, 09:59 AM | Post: #73
BenCousins
(18-03-2009 02:18 AM)xyish Wrote:  
(16-03-2009 11:18 AM)Ben Cousins Wrote:  First statement (I'm gonna bold this one) Battlefield Heroes is NOT designed for fans of the previous Battlefield games. It is designed to appeal to people who have never played a BF game before or who have maybe never played a shooter before. It really helps to understand the decisions we made to keep that goal in mind. If you are a hardcore BF player, I'm happy to see you playing the game, but you are not our main target audience.

I'd like to make a point regarding this. I'm not sure if casual gamers, or those who've never played a BF game, or even a shooter would find aircraft controls simple. While there is less of a penalty for crashing into the earth, the controls themselves may just seem a little intimidating for someone not familiar to previous BF games. And they will want to fly those planes after getting half their team wiped by a BF player well-versed in the art of good aircraft maneuvering and combat. In fact, there have been other shooters out there with simpler, more noob-friendly controls. That is not to say the game needs easier controls, but maybe that it should, since it is trying to cater to a less-than-hardcore audience. Just a thought.

Simpler plane controls was on our list for a long time but we never had time to implement it. The planes are much much easier to fly and harder to destroy in a crash than previous BF games.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2009, 08:56 PM | Post: #74
MaskedMakrel 
Well, I know its not supposed to be developed for regular players of Battlefield, but I am still concerned about the absences of some features. I think its because the organizational elements that allow for teamplay are facilitated by things like minimaps, commo rosies, voip, etc...

I feel that BF1942 was designed for people who never played a BF game before or who have maybe never played a shooter before.

BF1942 included:
Minimap which displayed friendlies.
Choosing Spawn Points.
Radio (not as commo rosie), but more developed than the limited emotes
Ability to choose a server.
Ability to change class in round.
Ability to change factions in a round.

It is true that I notice them because they are not there and I have played BF games before.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2009, 10:12 PM | Post: #75
BenCousins
(18-03-2009 08:56 PM)MaskedMakrel Wrote:  I think its because the organizational elements that allow for teamplay are facilitated by things like minimaps, commo rosies, voip, etc...

Organized teamplay was lower down on our list of priorities than with previous Battlefield games. Our feeling is that a pick-up-and play more casual shooter fan just wants to get in a game and shoot the bad guys without having to manage lots of communication and squad management features to succeed.

Battlefield Heroes' Lead Designer was James Salt who came direct from the same job on Battlefield 2142. We all know how to make a game that works like Bf2/2142/1942, but with Heroes we decided to go down a different path and appeal to a different audience.

Kind of interesting the most radical change we made in our opinion (3rd person) is generally accepted by people in comparison to other smaller changes like VOIP and the minimap.
(This post was last modified: 18-03-2009 10:13 PM by BenCousins.)
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2009, 12:41 AM | Post: #76
Bboy500 
(18-03-2009 10:12 PM)Ben Cousins Wrote:  [quote='MaskedMakrel' pid='34803' dateline='1237406199']
Kind of interesting the most radical change we made in our opinion (3rd person) is generally accepted by people in comparison to other smaller changes like VOIP and the minimap.

well to me 3rd person or 1st person doesnt matter as much as VOIP or minimaps. fps and tps are diffrent playstyles but they both work so there's nothing wrong with a 3rd person shooter. Voice in game and minimap are just little things that help make a game ALOT easier actually. if your aiming for casual player a minimap is STILL very usefull. at 1st you spawn inot the game and see some random flag and walk in that random direction. not knowing what is there wether its a big mounatin blocking your way, maybe a wide open area you would die in, or some deserted area no one even bothers to go to. a minimap would help anyone learn the map faster. you dont have to make a player light up everytime he gets shot or put up 50 diffrent icons for 50 diffrent things. put a minimap, some flags on there and the people on your team. as simple as that. EVEN that would be enough for me. im sur eit would help "casual players" who jsut got into the game very much ^^. as for the voice it would help and you can make it on/off im sure 99% of people could jsut ask how to turn it off if they dont know and people will answer.
if not then whatever ill use my x-fire to talk to my friends like i do now. i mostly want the minimap.

[Image: 2qn4hgp.png]
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2009, 01:42 AM | Post: #77
Raxis 
Pre-Script: I have never played a BattleField game before, ever, with the exception of the BF:MC demo.

The main points I agree with:

1- I would much rather have my teammate's names be visible over their heads from any distance as opposed to the near-useless minimap.

2- The inability to choose my spawning position has been very frustrating to me. Sometimes, I would like to spawn back at my main base to grab a tank or an airplane, but I am instead spawned on the front lines or a flag where there is no action. Since BFH is a slow-paced FPS, the random spawns hurt players much more than say... Unreal Tournament, or similar games. As was said earlier, not all players enjoy long walks on the beach. Wink
..or being unable to adapt to certain situations. :|

3- I would like to have an easy to use buddy list. Even just saying something like /add namehere, /join namehere, /showfriends in chat to do so would be awesome.

4- Inability to chose a server. I have left many unbalanced games (on both sides of the balance) in search of a server with even teams, but have almost always been dropped right back in the same server. I would like to have something a little more sophisticated than a bookmark-a-server function.

Not on the list, 5- Airplane angle addition to the hud for when you're flying. To have good strafing runs, it's best to fly down from above. When I see a target that I want to use this tactic on, I have to use my best guess as to how high I'm going and how much I'll have to correct my course. Just something that says "You're going straight up!" would be very helpful.

6- VOIP. What is the problem with giving players the CHOICE? Don't freaking deny some players the ability because "I don't want to hear (reason goes here)," YOU can just turn of your dang chat. Teamspeak, vent, all those things- setting those up does not appeal to me, no matter how easy it is to do.

That said, even with these flaws and frustrations, BFH is already a very, very fun game.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2009, 02:14 AM | Post: #78
JohnChard 
The problem with VOIP, alongside all the kiddiwinks, unpolicability, swearing 14 year olds, and my favourite trick (reading a book down it) is that it does give an advantage to the hardcore gamer over the casual in addition to pre-existing, non erradicatable problems (such as being more, as I believe the parlace is, "1337"!). Simply put, the sort of people who will have the VOIPy stuff will far more likely be the hardcore gamer, thus allowing for highly co-ordinated attacks. Not having it levels the playing field. Yes, the hardcorers can still co-ordinate attacks using the typy chat, but then you have to worry about being shot!

The one thing I would definately like to see changed, in addition to that which I have noted above and have been noted in other posts, is the BF purchased "Day" widgets, which last over a 24 hour period, i.e. VP and XP boost. That means that if you only play two hours a day, you only have two hours of boost, whereas if you play 22 hours, you get 22 hours of boost - doing it by hours one plays the game (i.e. you buy XP boost for, say, 12 hours which you actually are playing the game shooting people etc.) would be fairer on both, would encourage the casual to buy the boosts, and get round problems of people buying, and finding out that all the servers are laggy/full/1vs8/etc. or otherwise finding their investment wasted.

[Image: signatures.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2009, 07:44 AM | Post: #79
Retsopuk 
(16-03-2009 03:20 AM)Sgt. Salt Wrote:  
(16-03-2009 02:25 AM)MaskedMakrel Wrote:  3. No faction changing. This will probably mean that some rounds will be unbalanced since you cannot apparently switch sides. Team balance issues will remain a problem if we are stuck in one faction or the other.

Are you mentally slower than "average"? Im sorry to be harsh but seriously come on? Are you joking? This is battlefield heroes, a WW2 game, not Counter Strike and not Team Fortress 2. When Dice came up with Battlefield heroes they advertised it as an 'MMO'. Think of this game as an mmo, if you chose your class, in an mmo lets say magician, do you have the chance to change that class later on in the game? I don't think so. Unless of course its runescape which is the worst game the world faced.
[/quote]

dude salt ur a moron he meant like number of players on a faction i.e. too many royals not enough national players. so u cannot balance sides since ur stuck on a faction. ur the fucking person with a lower-than-average I.Q.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2009, 08:00 AM | Post: #80
KillerZero 
"renting" guns is my biggest thing that bugs me about that game and about the only thing besides the major lag issues

[Image: 28vevci.png]
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply




Forum Jump:



X
Add this person to your friends list
Remove this person from your friends list
/en/ajax/checkFriendStatus
/en/ajax/friend