Originally Posted by Owalpo
Every game has its flaws. That is a given. All because a sequel isn't exactly like the one before does not make it bad. Every BF2 fan who is now a BF3 hater was expecting the same game, but bigger and better graphics. It didn't happen in all departments and somethings to open BF3 to a wider audience were included.
BF3 is being played by people and people like it. You can say the same thing by the way for people who like it. They could just be playing the game not praising it.
To sum up my point. Games from BF3 to Planetside 2 to games in the future are going to have new features to appeal to a wider audience. These features aren't just added for shits and giggles.
|
The problem is that there is no proof that these features appeal to a wider audience. We can be reasonably sure that for example, a wider audience wants better graphics, that's a given. But there is no proof that people would rather have small maps, or 3D spotting, and so on. The fact that people are still playing utilizing these features only proves that they don't hate them enough to stop; that's not the same as liking them.
New does not automatically mean better. There is no technological reason we could not have had 99% of these features 10 years ago. Destruction is an exception. They are only being adopted now because they help mold the game into more like CoD, and that because CoD sells 20 million copies a year. But there is no way to know whether these features are really what drives CoD's sales. CoD has been well advertised for years compared to Battlefield, for one thing. The bandwagon effect is strong, you buy what your friends buy so you can play with them. If they've been buying CoD, so do you. Just as an example.
You make it sound as if not having some of these features makes a game into ArmA and that it only appeals to a hardcore audience. That's not true at all.
2012-04-05, 06:57 PM
Threaded Mode