Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy
These wouldn't happened to be the interviews where Higby can't go five minutes without saying "I play a lot of Battlefield and I was thinking, wouldn't it be cool if..." right?
The 'class kits', the lack of vehicle exit/entrance animations, the way the screen registers bullet hits, the numbers that pop up when you score a kill, the squad spawning, the focus on outdoor vs. indoor gameplay, the player indicators, the TTK, the pacing and speed of movement, the killcam, the weapon customization (do I have a laser pointer or a scope? OR BOTH?); all of these have been cribbed pretty much wholesale from Coddlefield.
The cert system that used to make PS really unique has been completely cut and replaced with the skills system from EVE. And who doesn't find EVE compelling? I'll tell you: 100% of the people not currently playing EVE.
What actually survived the transition from PS1 to PS2 is, far from being expanded, has been reduced and condensed. It's a step back in development, and would be less sad if it weren't so typical in the industry. Production companies all over the industry have spoken; we want less complexity, more lens flare. Fewer environments, more dynamic lighting. Fewer player options, crisper textures.
And then we wonder why fewer and fewer newer-generation games have the same charm and staying power of older titles. And I fear we will be wondering the same thing about PS2 when, twelve or sixteen months post-launch, it's already slipped into obscurity.
|
As a Battlefield refugee I have to say, not everything in Battlefield is bad, but DICE has completely gone to extremes of casualization in BF3. I assume, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that most of you PS folks are like me and you want "middle ground" on things. Middle ground TTK, that is, not fast, not slow. BF3 goes to many extremes...
Threaded Mode