That's a Terrible Idea

it's true that snipers in this game are very stron...

2010-03-16T19:51:10.591-04:00

it's true that snipers in this game are very strong combatants. They have a long range weapon on big maps, they have a mortar strike to take out encampments, and they have pistols that are effective at short range. Most of the times I die, it's not snipers, grenades, or rocket launcher fire.

Recon is meant to be strong, I think. Maybe a little too strong, I don't know. From my experience, engineers are the best class (great defensive abilities, no giveaway muzzle flash or gunfire sounds, accurate, low kickback midrange submachine guns, keep vehicles up and running), followed closely by medic and recon, assault way last. Engineers and medics are game changers, especially in Rush mode. Sniper rifles in the right hands are devastating, but they're supposed to be. That's why you have to play the game completely differently than MW2. You can't take the shortest route from A to B and assume if you sprint and hop around, you'll be fine. Like I said, as you learn the maps and become better at spotting, you'll start to notice where snipers are instinctively. You'll see movement in the trees or a flash on a rock. If you react quickly, he's toast. Easily. It's frustrating to get taken down by an enemy that you can't see, but for me that's part of the challenge. Part of the "relative realism" I mentioned earlier.

And again, I rarely die to grenades or RPGs. I don't know why you die to them so often. I die to snipers often, though. Maybe around or a little less than half the time.

The problem is that because of the ridiculous spawning mechanics and spotting difficulty, I don't nkow where enemies are coming from and I can't find good places to be in most instances. I'll just get sniped randomly from some direction opposite to that which most enemies seem to be coming from. This game usually doesn't allow battle lines to be formed, so taking cover is shockingly difficult. This wasn't a problem in MW2. It's not a problem in GA either.

I haven't had these issues. I don't have problems finding good cover. Spotting is challenging, but it goes both ways. You can get an idea of where your enemy is by sound (directional sound is very helpful) and tracer fire and using cover to check your surroundings. You find good places by being patient and moving into safe areas. Battle lines form due to the squad spawning mechanic, a feature I find very useful and fun. Recons often take up positions where they're out of regular line of sight for a reason, which is why as you run--even in an area you think is safe, you should stop, get down, get behind cover, listen, pop out and then back into cover, etc. It'll up your survivability tenfold to habitualize a little caution in your movement routines. Reckless running about like you can get away with in MW2 simply doesn't fly due to the large, open nature of the maps. If that's not okay with you, then yes, BC2 isn't the game for you.

evizaer: ... (aside from the ridiculous spotting ...

2010-03-16T19:50:53.148-04:00

evizaer:

... (aside from the ridiculous spotting issues)...

See, I just can't see where you're coming from on this. I don't have these spotting issues, and I don't know why you do. I'd estimate about 50-60% of the time I know who killed me and their general location, and the reason I died was because I didn't spot them quickly enough to line up a shot. Mostly that comes down to patience and surroundings awareness. And it's not like I'm very good at the game. I only get a KD ratio above 1 maybe once in four or five games.

"Realism" is BS--it's a defense for nothing. This game isn't realistic. It shouldn't take me four bullets or more to kill people. I shouldn't be in first-person if this game aims to be realistic, either, because that limits my field of view significantly more than it should I shouldn't have a radar. I shouldn't have a gauge that tells me how damaged vehicles are. I shouldn't be able to see bars and indicators above friendly players' heads. There shouldn't be flags on the field and points gained for holding them. Realism is no excuse for a design decision aside from radical cases.

Oh, I agree. Hence hardcore mode. Try it. You might like it. I agree in that your field of view is severely limited, but that's hardly unique to BC2. The game isn't aiming to BE realistic, it's aiming to be fun and MORE realistic, setting it apart from MW2, offering a different experience. We're only talking about relative realism, not actual realism. So in that sense my "realism" defense is not BS.
OK, great. I found that in the first 10 hours of play, it really mattered what I had unlocked. I did not have access to three slots worth of specializations (at least)--having these would make my XP gain a good bit faster.
You say that, but it doesn't mean it's true. Have you quantified your experience gain? Do you have the numbers? Can you control for your improving ability to play? 10 hours is a very short time to play this sort of game. Online FPS enthusiasts, as you seem to classify yourself as, play these games for hundreds of hours. You can't make it through 10 hours of not having all the unlocks you think you need before throwing in the towel? Remember what I said about patience? Maybe there's a pattern here.

It is bad design because it places unnecessary rewards in the game that stifle the experience of new players and punish players for no other reason than that they haven't spent enough time in th game.

Disagree. I never felt I was being punished. I felt the designers were staggering the rewards from the outset, and if that meant familiarizing myself with straight gunplay for a couple hours, big deal. I wasn't going to get all sweaty and red-faced about it. Certainly didn't feel it merited giving up on a game purchase after a modicum of effort.

I've played plenty of matches and randomly dying to grenades is an issue. I wouldn't have noticed it if it were not. There's no excuse for this game to have no indication grenades have landed aside from the visual cue if you're facing the thrower.

I'm not sure if it's an unlucky streak or the way you play or something about PC players, but I've yet to find hand grenades as an issue. I move around a lot. Despite what you think, it is very possible to differentiate a grenade from the rest of the crap flying around. Think of a hockey puck. The first time you watch a hockey game it seems impossible to follow the thing. Watch a hockey game with a hardcore fan. They never lose track of it. It's something that comes with experience. If you're using cover properly, it's almost impossible for someone to throw a grenade and kill you without them completely exposing themselves to you first.

Robert: I love the slower pace of BC2. Though it ...

2010-03-16T19:09:51.849-04:00

Robert:

I love the slower pace of BC2. Though it can become overly stressful. Playing the 4 squad deathmatch games is enough to give you an anxiety attack, and I will admit that snipers have an unfair advantage in that mode (imagine that tense sniper scene in Saving Private Ryan). Which is why I mostly stick with Rush and Conquest. Rush in particular can become insanely hectic when it comes down to the wire.

As for playing on a console, I fully agree it's MUCH tougher on a console (but again, I enjoy the chance to get good at something I'm not). I prefer FPSs on PC. But it's not a dealbreaker for me. I got it on PS3 because my brother and two friends have crappy PCs and we all wanted to play BC2 together.

And I commend Dice for taking a cue from MW on implementing a hardcore mode. Difference in realism between the two games on hardcore mode comes down to all the other factors we've discussed, plus the destructible environments--which I LOVE.

From there, like you said, it's just a matter of preference. To each his own. BC2 is hardly perfect. The ragdoll collision detection is pretty awful (dead guys poking through fences and walls), team imbalances being perpetuated from game to game, having to run long distances, not being able to go prone, the tracer gun seeming to be useless against choppers, tank rounds going through undestroyed cover to kill me, assault class being vastly inferior to the others (who runs out of ammo? nobody, that's who), stuff like that. All fairly minor quibbles though.

great tips... i don't really have anything to add....

2010-03-16T19:03:43.918-04:00

great tips... i don't really have anything to add... this is pretty much exactly how i play.

too bad my medic has just been collecting dust lately... SC2 is eating up all my spare time... and my not so spare time...

Slight correction: Most of the times I die, it's T...

2010-03-16T17:18:40.898-04:00

Slight correction: Most of the times I die, it's TO snipers, grenades, and rocket fire.

and that comment was directed at Adam.

"It's different, not worse." and "Learn to play." ...

2010-03-16T17:16:33.345-04:00

"It's different, not worse." and "Learn to play." are your two defenses.

Basically, you argue it's a matter of taste. It is, to a large extent.

Regardless, after 12 hours of playing a game I'd hope I'd find the fun in it. I play these games seriously aiming to build skill and be useful to my team. If anyone should find a team-based shooter like BFBC2 fun, it should be me (aside from the ridiculous spotting issues). There are so many frustrating factors to this game that aren't present in other high-quality shooters (as I outlined) that I am convinced to not play the game further.

"Realism" is BS--it's a defense for nothing. This game isn't realistic. It shouldn't take me four bullets or more to kill people. I shouldn't be in first-person if this game aims to be realistic, either, because that limits my field of view significantly more than it should. I shouldn't have a radar. I shouldn't have a gauge that tells me how damaged vehicles are. I shouldn't be able to see bars and indicators above friendly players' heads. There shouldn't be flags on the field and points gained for holding them. Realism is no excuse for a design decision aside from radical cases.

"Contrary to your assessment, I've not found there's not much of a snowball effect to gaining experience because of perks/equipment."

OK, great. I found that in the first 10 hours of play, it really mattered what I had unlocked. I did not have access to three slots worth of specializations (at least)--having these would make my XP gain a good bit faster.

"They can become competent and proficient with one class quickly, or they can spread out and be more versatile, but proficiency will take longer. It's not objectively bad design. YOU just don't like it."

It is bad design because it places unnecessary rewards in the game that stifle the experience of new players and punish players for no other reason than that they haven't spent enough time in th game.

"Grenades are simply not an issue."

I've played plenty of matches and randomly dying to grenades is an issue. I wouldn't have noticed it if it were not. There's no excuse for this game to have no indication grenades have landed aside from the visual cue if you're facing the thrower.

"Sniper issues on big maps, not a big deal. You're making it out to be as if it's some kind of plague. It isn't. Quit trying to play the game like MW2. "

It's not a plague--it's not gamebreaking--but it's true that snipers in this game are very strong combatants. They have a long range weapon on big maps, they have a mortar strike to take out encampments, and they have pistols that are effective at short range. Most of the times I die, it's not snipers, grenades, or rocket launcher fire.

"Run from cover to cover. Check where you'll be exposed for easy fire lines. Move as little as possible before shooting,"

I know this and this is how I behave. The problem is that because of the ridiculous spawning mechanics and spotting difficulty, I don't nkow where enemies are coming from and I can't find good places to be in most instances. I'll just get sniped randomly from some direction opposite to that which most enemies seem to be coming from. This game usually doesn't allow battle lines to be formed, so taking cover is shockingly difficult. This wasn't a problem in MW2. It's not a problem in GA either.

@Adam: You are correct in stating that "BC2 is no...

2010-03-16T16:43:09.618-04:00

@Adam:

You are correct in stating that "BC2 is not an arcade game." and "The moment I start getting impatient, I start dying."

BC2 is a much slower paced first person shooter game than the vast majority of great FPS's that came before it.

All the FPS games I mentioned are much faster paced than BC2 and perhaps that is why I hate BC2 so much.

I also hate playing a FPS on a console. I've tried it in the past and found it to be far less accurate and fun than a keyboard and mouse.

As for your hardcore comments:
"I like not knowing where my opponents are, I like them not seeing where I am after I kill them, I like not knowing how much ammo I have left or having to watch that my teammates don't cross my line of fire."

I am in agreement with you on that. My favorite Modern Warfare mode is Hardcore where all those things apply.

I guess it comes down to the fact that BC2 has a very different feel than almost all previous first person shooters that I've played.

In my opinion these differences cause the game to feel really horrible and not fun at all.

Others, you for example, like the game the way it is. I guess that's just the way it goes :)

I've been doing some board and card game design th...

2010-03-16T15:58:48.408-04:00

I've been doing some board and card game design the last year or so. They are almost all strategic, competitive turn based games. There are many more from people more experienced than I. I enjoy that sort of game, and I really enjoy designing them. I find that learning the nuts and bolts of why these games work tends to be enjoyable mental exercise, and it tends to make me better when I jump in and compete.

There are such games in the video game world, as well, but they don't earn the big bucks. Still, they are there.

Most of the rest of your complaints are, essential...

2010-03-16T15:47:48.459-04:00

Most of the rest of your complaints are, essentially, comparisons to MW or MW2. Again, CoD games are arcade games. BC2 is not. It's 10x more realistic (though still a far cry from the real thing, I'm sure). That doesn't make BC2 better, just different. That said, Robert above complains that the game is torn between fun and realism. I maintain that the realism is what helps make it fun. I play BC2 on hardcore mode because I like not knowing where my opponents are, I like them not seeing where I am after I kill them, I like realistic bullet damage, I like not knowing how much ammo I have left or having to watch that my teammates don't cross my line of fire. That MAKES it fun for me. But if that kind of challenge is an annoyance to you, I suggest you stick with MW2. It's clearly the game you prefer, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Unlike Robert, I couldn't disagree more with all o...

2010-03-16T15:47:36.778-04:00

Unlike Robert, I couldn't disagree more with all of your comments. Well, most. I'll address them.

Unlocking your class's base abilities is annoying, at first. I agree. But I also see the point of giving players a choice when they start the game. They can become competent and proficient with one class quickly, or they can spread out and be more versatile, but proficiency will take longer. It's not objectively bad design. YOU just don't like it. And it really doesn't take that long to get the base abilities. Couple hours max with each. And you're playing a game. It's not like someone is flicking your nutsack the entire time.

Contrary to your assessment, I've not found there's not much of a snowball effect to gaining experience because of perks/equipment. You gain more experience as you gain more experience with the game. Pay attention the next time you have a skilled, high ranking player in your squad. Watch what he does. Watch how he uses the map to his advantage. How he stays alive, picks his spots. Pay attention to how your guns don't always (in fact, only infrequently) actually get BETTER as you rank up. My recon class has three sniper rifles unlocked and I'm still using the first one. I still use my RPG on my engineer very often, despite having the anti-tank mines and M2 AT. Again, it's preference. Not always better.

Grenades are simply not an issue. Each class has, by default, one. And to get more you have to give up equally more more valuable perks. The maps are large, as you complain about later. This largely mitigates the irritating grenade kills MW suffers from. I've killed a grand total of 4 people with grenades so far (rank 8), and three of those were a lucky triple kill on an M-COM. I've been killed by grenades about 5 times. Total.

I can't comment on the shift key issue you have. I play on PS3. I get tired of running around as well, but that's the price of having a big map. I'm willing to pay it. Anyway, that's what your squadmates are for. Make a habit of spawning on them and helping them spawn on you. Everybody's happy.

Sniper issues on big maps, not a big deal. You're making it out to be as if it's some kind of plague. It isn't. Quit trying to play the game like MW2. They're nothing alike. Check your surroundings. Watch for muzzle flashes on hillsides, ridges and other obvious sniper spots. I can't stress enough what a little patience can do for you in this game. The moment I start getting impatient, I start dying. Run from cover to cover. Check where you'll be exposed for easy fire lines. Move as little as possible before shooting, then move to another safe spot. Watch what the good players do, and copy them. BC2 is not an arcade game.

You need a shocking amount of XP earned before you gain access to the red dot sight. As I said in my post about CoD4, using iron sights is almost strictly inferior to using red dot sights.

You shouldn't complain about this when you immediately explain it away after. There's a reason Dice doesn't whore out red dot sights. Because they are, in general, superior. Become a good player with iron sights, get your red dot sight if you need it. Most skilled players don't, and will opt for a more useful perk. Don't believe me? Start swapping out kits with dead players as you run around. You'll find a surprising dearth of red dot sights. I personally like the red dot sight, but I doubt I'll continue using it as I become better at the game.

It's supposed to be difficult to spot your enemy. It's also difficult for them to spot you, provided you aren't running around on open ground. That's the point. That difficulty is what separates the experienced, skilled players from the tourists and the dabblers. I understand if you can't get behind that, but I and many others like it.

I can't agree more with all of your comments. I'v...

2010-03-16T11:22:19.616-04:00

I can't agree more with all of your comments.

I've been playing first person shooters since Wolfenstein 3D. I've played Quake 2 (including the Action Quake addon), Quake 3, Unreal Tournament (all of them), Counterstrike (years worth), Tribes, Return to Castle Wolfenstein. I've been to many Lan Parties where we played Battlefield 1942 (and later Vietnam) for hours. Team Fortress and Modern Warfare 2 have both seen countless weeks of playing from me.

Having all that experience with FPS, I can soundly say that Battlefield: Bad Company 2 is a HORRIBLE game.

The game is torn between 'fun' and 'realism'.

Several places where they chose realism have made the game not fun. Such as gravity, grenades, weapon range, etc.

Other places where I guess they thought they were adding fun in spite of realism, they ended up causing bad experiences. Your 'instant spawning on squad mates' example is spot on. Not anywhere realistic (which doesn't matter if fun) and not any fun at all.

It's a HORRIBLE first person shooter game.

You make some strong points here. You made me feel...

2010-03-16T07:18:55.216-04:00

You make some strong points here. You made me feel a great nostalgy about my former hundreds homm3 four hour games; damn, even my carcassone hunters & gatherers playing at brettspielwelt, later on. All these games have their own flaws, of course, and chess or go will stay there for good, but I would love to see some diversity in this kind of game. What are you thinking of doing?

From a business point of view, the problem is that...

2010-03-13T13:23:48.375-05:00

From a business point of view, the problem is that innovation represents a lot of risk but also a lot of reward. Some of the top selling games of all times were rather unique. The Sims is a classic example where the people in charge didn't want the game because it was too risky. Will Wright worked on it anyway and it went on to be the best selling game series for a long time. What's interesting to note is that The Sims ultimately appealed to a different audience than typical games of the time. (cf. the Wii for another example of "innovation" reaching a new audience, by design.)

On the other hand, the tried and true can be more reliable cash cows. As I've mentioned several times before, Blizzard has made a huge reputation on polishing existing games. They don't innovate, but they have consistently popular titles.

So, I think you're exactly right here. Most people really want more of the same. Every once in a while people want something completely new. But, in order to really hit the big time, you need to appeal to another audience, at least in part.

Something i noticed with the helicopters is the th...

2010-03-11T22:04:21.631-05:00

Something i noticed with the helicopters is the the draw distance seems to be very limited at anything other than what i would consider flying "on the deck" the details of objects and terrain simply disapear making it impossible to see any targets on the ground unless you are low enuff for every gun on the map to hit your chopper. This could have been my settings but i run the game at high settings for everything but AA/AF. I have given up on devs putting any realisim in their games. If this is deliberate then they are limiting the tactics that could be employed by players in the use of vehicles.

An interesting PoV. Thanks!

2010-03-11T14:05:48.897-05:00

An interesting PoV. Thanks!

Dblade said... "It can still be a FPS and be an MM...

2010-03-10T12:50:19.870-05:00

Dblade said...
"It can still be a FPS and be an MMO. It just needs to be online with a large amount of players in a gameplay unit."

What or who dictates "large"? Assuming we maintain the 'map size' to 'number of players' ratio so that relative map presence or occupation is held constant, at what point does the game cross the threshold into massive? At 60 players? 128? Perhaps at 2 sq km?

Or are you saying this is more of an emotional response, "we'll know it's massive when we feel it"? That might be the best we can do with MMOGs outside the realm of RPG.

@kenny - griefers are going to grief no matter wha...

2010-03-10T10:04:54.619-05:00

@kenny - griefers are going to grief no matter what the developers do... by your same logic we simply shouldn't have the internet because hackers will steal our information and cause us hassles (my battle.net account just got hacked a few days ago, but that doesn't mean that blizzard should just scrap battle.net)... just because a small segment of the population are idiots doesn't mean you should design specifically for those idiots.. especially when they're going to find loopholes and creative ways to be an idiot no matter what you do.

personally i think that just suggesting to players how they can organize themselves to get the most out of their game time will be enough to confer a benefit to the community... but maybe that's not enough and you'll have to make some mechanics/rule changes that make designations even more clear... i don't know exactly, it hasn't really been done before... but i definitely think it's worth exploring and has a lot of potential.

yes, something like a "casual" channel would be very tempting for a ganker... but only if it's applied to an open pvp zone... there are so many other ways a system like this could be used... it all depends on the game and the specific zone... maybe for 1 type of game a casual channel would work fine, for another it wouldn't.. maybe in one zone a pvp specific type channel would work, but in another it wouldn't... it's up to the designer to determine what would be best for the game. you're looking only at the worst possible scenario, which is generally a good way to assess a design, but in this case that worst possible scenario can be avoided all together by using a bit of common sense.

hmm... just reread your post and i think you misinterpreted my use of the world "rules" ... when i say rules i mean how the game functions or how the mechanics work... not rules as in what we think of in real life, where they're more or less just guidelines that can be broken but have consequences.. in a game, rules are what define the game, everything operates within those rules and they simply cannot be broken, except by bugs and exploits of course.

does that make more sense now?

Hey Mot sorry, didn't realize it was you posting. ...

2010-03-10T07:58:01.026-05:00

Hey Mot sorry, didn't realize it was you posting. This is what I get for commenting late at night. Now you can have a turn to deal with me. ;)

You are right, but also keep in mind MMO is an adjective. It can still be a FPS and be an MMO. It just needs to be online with a large amount of players in a gameplay unit.

Thing is, MMO used to be only capable in MMORPGs because of network and latency issues. Because of that, a certain style of game existed centered around a persistent virtual world. You are making the mistake of trying to make that game the standard of a more general definition.

The feeling of massivity doesn't need persistence. If you can play with hundreds of people in any genre of game online together, its an MMO. If it's a demoliton derby arena or car shooter game that can have hundreds of people drive and shoot it out, is it really that less massive because it isn't persistent?

@Mot: ah, ok, funcom uses it in anarchy online as ...

2010-03-10T02:28:45.724-05:00

@Mot: ah, ok, funcom uses it in anarchy online as well - though only indoor areas like shops and 2 public static dungeons to keep population in sane (not insane) levels.

@Logan: "by funneling players with similar playstyles and interests together, you create a better environment for relationships to form, and a better chance for an engaged community to evolve."

Sure. So you want to make a community ripe for the picking for the right people. Or do you plan to actively police them and enforce the rules? I'm not sure if it's feasible at all. All that asshat Myers showed us was that jerks don't give a flying f-ck about community reactions, they need developer intervention.

"When others point out the patterns the process ma...

2010-03-10T02:20:04.815-05:00

"When others point out the patterns the process may speed up, but boredom must develop from actually playing the games."

I really don't agree with this. You have some of the idiots screaming really loud and they can actually convince people who are simply to lazy to think and have an opinion for themselves. Hell, screaming people can screw the "fun" even for those people who would actually enjoy the game otherwise.

Anyway this rehashing is at least just as much an industry built on risk avoidance than new generation of players being new to certain types of content.

sweet! i'm glad. looking forward to what new ideas...

2010-03-09T19:02:26.529-05:00

sweet! i'm glad. looking forward to what new ideas you come up with :)

You have convinced me to take another look into Ch...

2010-03-09T15:56:56.193-05:00

You have convinced me to take another look into Channels, Logan :P

you're absolutely right that a small population te...

2010-03-09T12:50:05.120-05:00

you're absolutely right that a small population tends to lend itself to a better "community"...

but what if you used channels to help achieve that smaller community? so instead of taking 50,000 players and splitting them up into 10 separate realms arbitrarily, maybe you could use channels to simulate those 10 separate realms... but instead of just having numbered channels that mean nothing, you could give each of the channels a different meaning... so maybe 1 channel is more for "hardcore" players, and another is for "casual" players... maybe 1 channel is more for PvP and another is more for PvE.. maybe 1 channel is for large established guilds that aren't interested in recruiting new members, and another is where guilds and players that are looking for a guild go to meet each other... and these aren't really even the best ways channels can be used (i'm saving some of those for my own MMO).

i guess when i think of channels i see a lot of potential to create MORE community, they just haven't been used in that way before, so it's tough for people (even designers) to see the potential there.

each channel could have slightly different rules, like the PvP and PvE servers in WoW... but you could take that idea and go so much further... and by funneling players with similar playstyles and interests together, you create a better environment for relationships to form, and a better chance for an engaged community to evolve.

channels have a ton of potential... don't make snap judgments about them based on their existing implementation... they could be done soooo much better.

Dblade, I still propose the 'massive' in any MMOG ...

2010-03-09T10:23:49.572-05:00

Dblade, I still propose the 'massive' in any MMOG is more than just a numbers game. As I said in the main post, any FPS with 256 or more player battles is still just a FPS unless it has a virtual world component.

Kenny, channeling is a zoning device used in virtual environments to make it appear that more players are in a location than there really are. Multiple public instances are spawned, most of the time dynamically, to accommodate an increasing influx of players to the zone. Sometimes communication channels (not to be confused with zone channels) span the zone channels so players can communicate, but the players cannot see each other or interact in any other way. Monsters and other resources are local to each individual channel.

Players are usually given the choice to switch channels, but when and where this choice is present is dependent on the implementation. Channeling is used in EQ2 (I know it was used at release. I have no idea if it is still there.), Age of Conan, Champions Online, Aion, and Global Agenda.

I feel dumb but what is "channeling"?

2010-03-09T06:10:37.435-05:00

I feel dumb but what is "channeling"?