Woah EA, we've already been fed enough bullshit from Ubisoft this week as is.
"Think about what Battlefield 4 was," Wilson told Eurogamer. "64 player multiplayer, giant maps, 1080p, Levolution that was changing the gameplay design in an emergent way.
Two of these things (64 players, 1080p) were always in the PC versions of Battlefield games. Infact I don't even think any console version (Next-Gen?) plays 64 player servers.
Isn't Levolution just a gimmick too?
No, it was a disaster because it was shitly made, and I expect Hardline to be as shitty if not shittier
[quote]"There is a chance there are things you are going to miss through the development cycle. And you end up in a situation we had with Battlefield 4."
Wilson said that the game's release state was "unacceptable" to both him and DICE - and pointed out that EA had "worked tirelessly" to meet the promises they'd originally made for the game in the months since its launch.[/quote]
You know, it's [i]okay[/i] to delay a game EA. Rather that than release a game in the state that BF4 was in.
[QUOTE=DEMONSKUL;45164778]No, it was a disaster because it was shitly made, and I expect Hardline to be as shitty if not shittier[/QUOTE]The problem with hardline(at least so far) is that it has no direction. Someone in studio probably just went "lets make cops and robbers" and that's where entire design phase ended.
Let me fix your wording, EA.
BF4's launch was a disaster because you stuck to a release date you posted FAR before you knew where the game would be at on that date.
64 players
2002 must feel just like yesterday for this guy. Fuck there were probably games that could support that playercount before BF1942
[QUOTE=TheTalon;45164799]Let me fix your wording, EA.
BF4's launch was a disaster because you stuck to a release date you posted FAR before you knew where the game would be at on that date.[/QUOTE]
Well to be fair if shipping an unfinished product isn't ambitious I don't know what is.
The reason was "64 player multiplayer, giant maps, 1080p"?
Every single one of these features has been available in Battlefield 1942, Vietnam, 2, 2142 and 3. Wtf is he talking about.
What a terrible move, if I were them I'd just shut up and hope people forget about it instead of mention it over and over. Trying to justify the release of a shit product only makes it worse for them
Oh god, they actually used the term "levolution" again. I had almost forgotten about that. It reminds me of "cinteractives", Treyarch's term for their QTE's in Spider-Man 3.
One thing is ambition, another thing is insanity
It seems the two words often get mixed
[QUOTE=Jimesu_Evil;45164850]Well to be fair if shipping an unfinished product isn't ambitious I don't know what is.[/QUOTE]
I wish games couldn't be patched, like most games Pre-Xbox. Then we'd see some actual quality and control before release
AKA "We dont' want to take any chances so we'll just rehash what we already have for the next ten years. It's worked so far!"
Lazy sods.
Honestly I think Battlefield 4 would have had more time for bug testing if they grew some balls and released it only Next Gen and PC instead of putting more work to have 360 and PS3 versions.
Then again I'm probably giving EA too much credit.
Battlefield 4 wasn't ambitious at all. I like the game when it works so don't get me wrong but it simply was not an ambitious title. It took what worked in BF3, cut out what didn't, shuffled the class balance around, and added some new maps and guns.
"Levelution" is what caused the game to be so broken at release, what a joke. Anyone who has played on more than the two maps that actually have impressive Levelution scenes knows how much of a pointless gimmick it is.
On about half the maps it's literally just blowing up one tiny part that no one goes to and has absolutely no affect on the match.
[editline]20th June 2014[/editline]
Battlefield 4 had a shitty launch because there is a culture at DICE that allows unfinished games to be made. Lets not kid ourselves and say that previous Battlefield games had flawless launches; while none were as hilariously stupid as BF4 they all ranged from decently buggy to fairly buggy. I have bought every Battlefield game at launch since 1942 came out and know first hand the issues with servers, hit detection, server browsers, map issues, physics, UI problems etc that steadily get patched out over the course of the games life to the point where they become somewhere been acceptable and perfect.
This culture finally caught up to them with Battlefield 4, which was so critically broken at so many levels that it was honestly amazing. I had never seen a game with that much money behind it, from a studio and publisher combination that old, launch that poorly in my life. I'm really interested to see where Battlefield goes from here because the massive loss in good will they suffered from Battlefield fans after BF4 combined with the general impression of Hardline as a $60 DLC (with a planned $50 season pass) makes me foresee a CoD-esque decline.
I always considered part of the reason for the game to be an unfinished buggy mess was because EA intentionally had it released and shipped out with the mentality of beating Call of Duty: Ghosts to the market first, like with Battlefield 3. Even BF3 was buggy at its launch, and they had to make some compromises with its release, but it only got accentuated by Battlefield 4. Not to mention making BF4 from the third game's base without [i]any[/i] of the patches added in.
[QUOTE=RikohZX;45169815]I always considered part of the reason for the game to be an unfinished buggy mess was because EA intentionally had it released and shipped out with the mentality of beating Call of Duty: Ghosts to the market first, like with Battlefield 3. Even BF3 was buggy at its launch, and they had to make some compromises with its release, but it only got accentuated by Battlefield 4. Not to mention making BF4 from the third game's base without [i]any[/i] of the patches added in.[/QUOTE]
A guy from QA on BF4 (who later got fired so you know its legit) actually said shortly after release that quality assurance testing was cut short to get the game out before Ghosts last year.
[editline]20th June 2014[/editline]
Also the Siege of Shanghai "beta" was built on an entirely different version of the game created for marketing purposes which is why it had none of the bugs (except horrible stuttering and CTD's) that the final game had.
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;45164845]64 players
2002 must feel just like yesterday for this guy. Fuck there were probably games that could support that playercount before BF1942[/QUOTE]
Yeah, Tribes 2 came out in 2001 and supported 128 players
[QUOTE=Jazer;45164729]Woah EA, we've already been fed enough bullshit from Ubisoft this week as is.[/QUOTE]
My theory: None of these companies can ever come and admit to their investors that they fucked up. Wall Street is just too cut-throat for that.
[QUOTE=Flapjacks;45170028]My theory: None of these companies can ever come and admit to their investors that they fucked up. Wall Street is just too cut-throat for that.[/QUOTE]
The problem is they answer to their investors, not customers, so it doesn't matter what we want or like. They patched BF4, called it Hardline, and the $70 Deluxe edition is a top seller. Ubisoft made a good looking trailer for Watch Dogs, nothing else, and it was a top seller. All they have to do now is just make something look good without anyone knowing the truth until release and they win
Can they stop pushing that levolution crap, multiplayer games have had map specific gimmicks in them for years.
It was a disaster because it was released more riddled with bugs than a crawlspace
Liar! Why do companies mistake the actual hardcore gamers for peasants? Do they seriously fail to see the distinction between the two very different groups of people who play games, thinking we're all fucking monkeys? We don't just forgive and forget because they throw bananas at the cage, we remember all the shit they pulled and try to make sure they don't pull it again!
Of course it would be a hell of a lot easier if we didn't have all these dumb callous peasants throwing money at any game with an M16 and tacticl00l next-gen graphix, regardless of the industrial politics and ethics involved. They make our quest for a better industry not just harder, but near fucking impossible to achieve since our boycotts barely make a dent even when they DO work.
[QUOTE=ironman17;45174288]Liar! Why do companies mistake the actual hardcore gamers for peasants? Do they seriously fail to see the distinction between the two very different groups of people who play games, thinking we're all fucking monkeys? We don't just forgive and forget because they throw bananas at the cage, we remember all the shit they pulled and try to make sure they don't pull it again!
Of course it would be a hell of a lot easier if we didn't have all these dumb callous peasants throwing money at any game with an M16 and tacticl00l next-gen graphix, regardless of the industrial politics and ethics involved. They make our quest for a better industry not just harder, but near fucking impossible to achieve since our boycotts barely make a dent even when they DO work.[/QUOTE]
is this a serious post??
"We shipped something that we didn't bother finishing because we forced a date of release on the developers and right now we're just trying to make sure investors don't drop out on us and we're making bullshit excuses while the things I'm saying we had were already features available in fucking tons of things, especially our pre-existing Battlefield games."
I learned how to speak Bullshit in highschool, so I translated for you guys.
They're working in the wrong direction when it comes to battlefield games. Let's take this "Levolution" for example. When I was playing BF3 I was p hyped for the enhanced destruction for I thought that we can use craters and holes in walls to fire on enemies, but all I got was meaningless stuff that was more for show-off. As I've seen, they continued to do that in BF4.
Hey guys, why don't you use "levolution" to, let's say, enable players to destroy sandbags and other cover in infrantry-oriented maps, or use switches to create or destroy routes to flags or even implement weather conditions whereby flying will be impaired
jesus christ, so much potential but instead we got so much gimmicky shit
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
