DICE takes the blame for holding back Mirror's Edge 2 - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=BenJammin';41966741]Battlefront isn't going to be hard to live up to. Battlefront was not a masterpiece of game design, in fact it kinda felt like total shit but it was fun anyways because STAR WARS. I just hope they retain the flying body physics whenever you throw thermal detonators. That was hilarious[/QUOTE] That is the interesting thing about Battlefield.. It was a B-grade shooter, but it was FUN. And it was fun BECAUSE it was a B-grade shooter. I just hope they don't overdo it. Don't turn it into a big blockbuster. It doesn't need to be, and I think that would harm the franchise.

[QUOTE=Tsanummy;41966881]Could you share those problems? Never heard an elaborated bad critic about ME's problems[/QUOTE] Well in most aspects it just didn't work. The movement and platforming are both very clunky, the combat of course sucked, the on-rails nature of it undermined the whole "free running" idea. Then of course there were the porting and optimization issues. Don't get me wrong, it was unique, and nice looking, but for the most part the gameplay fell flat.

[QUOTE=Jackald;41963002]I'm really pessimistic about Mirror's Edge DICE barely has any of the same people in it that used to work there back in 2006, and ME is apparently being an open world prequel. ME worked so well because of its meticulously planned and carefully placed level design and failed because of the combat. i'm fully expecting them to make it a combat-focused retread of ME1. I just don't trust DICE to make good games anymore.[/QUOTE] Well they said the combat was going to be entirely rethought to be actually playable (as opposed to the tacked on shitty combat system of the first game) so the combat part isn't really what scares me. What scares me is that the game by being open world may lose some of its charm, except if they handcraft every single rooftop in the game.

[QUOTE=Jackald;41963002]I'm really pessimistic about Mirror's Edge DICE barely has any of the same people in it that used to work there back in 2006, and ME is apparently being an open world prequel. ME worked so well because of its meticulously planned and carefully placed level design and failed because of the combat. i'm fully expecting them to make it a combat-focused retread of ME1. I just don't trust DICE to make good games anymore.[/QUOTE] People are going to rate me dumb for this, but I honestly didn't have fun playing any of the Battlefields after 2142.

[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;41967229]People are going to rate me dumb for this, but I honestly didn't have fun playing any of the Battlefields after 2142.[/QUOTE] Although there hasn't been a Battlefield game that I've disliked, there's no denying that they aren't what they used to be.

The bad company games were pretty fun with all the destruction. I can't stand BF3 though. I don't know what it is about the movement I can't really get into it. The lens flare is also pretty atrocious. Free-roam ME2 sounds really awesome and either way I'm not making high expectations.. ME1 was a good short story with unique gameplay mechanics everything else after that is just a bonus.

[QUOTE=Jackald;41972960] I had fun with BF3 for a while, but eventually everything got a little too clusterfuck-y if you know what I mean. Like why bother using any vehicles, everyone's running around with upgraded RPGs and c4 that will just instantly kill you. Flying jets is a joke, you pretty much have to be popping flares 24/7 to even have a chance at doing anything. The only viable gameplay choice really is infantry, since some C4 or some upgraded RPG can counter anything.[/QUOTE] Everything about this is wrong though. Except C4 being the master item, but that's been the case since 1942. Also you might not like infantry combat but BF3 significantly improved the way it handled, that's just objective fact.

Then your opinion isn't right, battlefield has always been about infantry combat SUPPLEMENTED by vehicle combat. but of course bitching and moaning commences because "i cant kill everyone in my tank wtf"

[QUOTE=Jackald;41973205]It made infantry more viable than vehicles, which is kind of not the point of battlefield in my humble opinion. But it's fine, if people liked BF3 then i'm sure they'll like BF4, but i won't be buying it because I don't like the way that BF3 plays.[/QUOTE] The point of Battlefield was always supposed to be infantry and vehicles cooperating to capture or defend objectives, this was just less of a thing in previous games because the infantry gameplay was [B]shit[/B].