Battlefield Dev Thinks Its Competition Is Getting Lazy

[Baresark]

No they aren't. This is:

(adj) Lazy: moving slowly and gently [http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=lazy]

Black Ops has the pacing of a rocket. Therefore, not lazy.

By this definition.

The pacing of the game doesn't have anything to do with the laziness of the developer. I think they are referring to the same rehashing of game elements again and again in the game. But, it's not like Battlefield games are much different in this respect, they just don't release a game a year with the same elements. There has historically been at least two years between battlefield games (not including expansions). Though with Battlefield 3, this will development cycle will be broken, it would seem.

Really, it's always going to come down to opinion. I don't care for the constantly frantic, kill streaking style of CoD games. It gets old way too quick and often time comes down to whoever shoots first. In the Battlefield games,the maps are larger, there are vehicles, multiple classes to pick from and level, different weapons and much better squad based combat. My opinion is that Battlefield games are better. That is all.

 

[Ajna]

But that's not what this is about. The lazy thing about the BC campaigns is the gameplay, the horribly bland level design, the enemy placement, the trial-and-error sections.

And, most importantly, I'd rather play through Black Ops twice in the time it took me to finish the campaign in BC2. And four times through MW2.

EDIT: Oh, and what does the BC2 campaign end on? Where have I seen that twist before?

Gameplay: I don't think anything in it was lazy. Wasn't there a section where a helicopter is chasing you through a tunnel, or something like that? That's not taking a page from another developer's book, far as I know. (But I haven't been playing games for as long as some community members, maybe I'm wrong. It wouldn't be the first time.)

Bland level design: There are only so many ways you can make a FPS level. How would you suggest varying it? "Bring solutions, not problems". It's one thing to say that going through a bunch of buildings is boring. But if you take away the buildings, then there's no cover. And then you die a lot. Besides that, a lack of buildings would be "bland" too.

Enemy placement: I don't know how that was a problem. I don't remember where any of the enemies were in the campaign, and I would certainly remember it if it stood out as "bad".

Trial-and-error: Everything is trial and error if you're bad enough. That's not "lazy". That's "it exists". Opening a door could be trial and error if somebody was sufficiently bad at it.

EDIT: I forget what note the campaign ended on, so I can't address that.

2nd EDIT: Besides that, the article is about their intentions for BF3, not what they thought of on BC 1/2. So they aren't saying that they weren't lazy with their other games.

3rd EDIT: Sorry for any typos. I'm typing this on a public computer, and some of the keys don't register on this keyboard.

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

No they aren't. This is:

(adj) Lazy: moving slowly and gently [http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=lazy]

Black Ops has the pacing of a rocket. Therefore, not lazy.

By this definition.

The pacing of the game doesn't have anything to do with the laziness of the developer. I think they are referring to the same rehashing of game elements again and again in the game. But, it's not like Battlefield games are much different in this respect, they just don't release a game a year with the same elements. There has historically been at least two years between battlefield games (not including expansions). Though with Battlefield 3, this will development cycle will be broken, it would seem.

Really, it's always going to come down to opinion. I don't care for the constantly frantic, kill streaking style of CoD games. It gets old way too quick and often time comes down to whoever shoots first. In the Battlefield games,the maps are larger, there are vehicles, multiple classes to pick from and level, different weapons and much better squad based combat. My opinion is that Battlefield games are better. That is all.

He gave me a definition, I proved he was not abiding by it with simple logic.

I'm not saying that that definition of "lazy" is the one I agree with.

Unless he's talking about the series as a whole, not the pacing of one game.

In which case, BC2... still not really different or innovative.

 

[Irridium]

This coming from the developer with one of the most uninteresting teasers of the year.

Seriously, the Battlefield 3 teaser that showed gameplay was one of the least interesting things I've seen. It looked like any other damn shooter. If they didn't say it was Battlefield, I would have assumed it was another Medal of Honor.

 

[Ajna]

He gave me a definition, I proved he was not abiding by it with simple logic.

I was being a smartass. Nobody "abides" by a smartass comment. Hell, "abide" doesn't even seem to mean what you think it does. When talking about definitions, using the right words is a good idea.

This thread isn't even on the second page, and it's starting to get flame-y. Sorry for that, E-crew.

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

Bland level design: There are only so many ways you can make a FPS level. How would you suggest varying it? "Bring solutions, not problems". It's one thing to say that going through a bunch of buildings is boring. But if you take away the buildings, then there's no cover. And then you die a lot. Besides that, a lack of buildings would be "bland" too.

"Hey, guys. We've made this giant level with nothing interesting in it, except for three goals, scattered in different directions. Here's a car. Enjoy yourselves.

Oh, and, it's a Middle Eastern setting. HA!"

Enemy placement: I don't know how that was a problem. I don't remember where any of the enemies were in the campaign, and I would certainly remember it if it stood out as "bad".

"Hey, guys. DICE again. We thought that the campaign in the first game was too fun, so we have filled this one with snipers and RPG guys. Have fun.

Also, they're all on rooftops, while you're walking around on the streets. And every explosion leaves a bunch of dust you can't see through that takes ages to go away. We're sorry."

Trial-and-error: Everything is trial and error if you're bad enough. That's not "lazy". That's "it exists". Opening a door could be trial and error if somebody was sufficiently bad at it.

Really?

The implication that I suck at BC2.

Boy, did I never get that, ever?

Well, I'm sorry if I'm not good at a game that hates the player.

I forget what note the campaign ended on, so I can't address that.

Spoiler

Russian invasion.

I was being a smartass. Nobody "abides" by a smartass comment. Hell, "abide" doesn't even seem to mean what you think it does. When talking about definitions, using the right words is a good idea.

This thread isn't even on the second page, and it's starting to get flame-y. Sorry for that, E-crew.

Improper use of a word with English not being my first language. Clearly you have defeated me.

 

[Baresark]

No they aren't. This is:

(adj) Lazy: moving slowly and gently [http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=lazy]

Black Ops has the pacing of a rocket. Therefore, not lazy.

By this definition.

The pacing of the game doesn't have anything to do with the laziness of the developer. I think they are referring to the same rehashing of game elements again and again in the game. But, it's not like Battlefield games are much different in this respect, they just don't release a game a year with the same elements. There has historically been at least two years between battlefield games (not including expansions). Though with Battlefield 3, this will development cycle will be broken, it would seem.

Really, it's always going to come down to opinion. I don't care for the constantly frantic, kill streaking style of CoD games. It gets old way too quick and often time comes down to whoever shoots first. In the Battlefield games,the maps are larger, there are vehicles, multiple classes to pick from and level, different weapons and much better squad based combat. My opinion is that Battlefield games are better. That is all.

He gave me a definition, I proved he was not abiding by it with simple logic.

I'm not saying that that definition of "lazy" is the one I agree with.

Unless he's talking about the series as a whole, not the pacing of one game.

In which case, BC2... still not really different or innovative.

Touché my friend. Touché. Neither are really innovative anymore.

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

Touché my friend. Touché. Neither are really innovative anymore.

Or haven't been since 2005. The core gameplay of Black Ops is still largely based on the staple of the series, CoD 2.

All that Battlefield has been recently trying to do is emulate 1942 and 2.

 

[Squilookle]

It's funny that this guy is saying something about "laziness" when it comes to single-player campaign while being part of DICE.

You can say that again. DICE is just as lazy as the rest of them, and Battlefield games never even HAD a narrative campaign before Bad Company. Unless BF finally has it's singleplayer make use of wide open areas with combined operations of soldiers and vehicles (you know, where BF's strength has always been), then it's just going to be another craptastic corridor shooter like COD is.

They shouldn't see COD as their rival- they should see Flashpoint and Homefront as their rivals.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

"Hey, guys. DICE again. We thought that the campaign in the first game was too fun, so we have filled this one with snipers and RPG guys. Have fun.

Also, they're all on rooftops, while you're walking around on the streets. And every explosion leaves a bunch of dust you can't see through that takes ages to go away. We're sorry."

.

LOL! This summed up perfectly the biggest frustrations I had with that game. The campaign would have only been half the length it was if you didn't spend so much time waiting for dust clouds to clear so you could see the enemies.

In a medium and genre based primarily on visual interaction, robbing you of the ability to see stuff is cardinal sin and epic fail.

 

[Ajna]

Bland level design: There are only so many ways you can make a FPS level. How would you suggest varying it? "Bring solutions, not problems". It's one thing to say that going through a bunch of buildings is boring. But if you take away the buildings, then there's no cover. And then you die a lot. Besides that, a lack of buildings would be "bland" too.

"Hey, guys. We've made this giant level with nothing interesting in it, except for three goals, scattered in different directions. Here's a car. Enjoy yourselves.

Oh, and, it's a Middle Eastern setting. HA!"

True. I forgot about that level. But I feel that my point is still valid. Buildings = bland, no buildings = bland.

Enemy placement: I don't know how that was a problem. I don't remember where any of the enemies were in the campaign, and I would certainly remember it if it stood out as "bad".

"Hey, guys. DICE again. We thought that the campaign in the first game was too fun, so we have filled this one with snipers and RPG guys. Have fun.

Also, they're all on rooftops, while you're walking around on the streets. And every explosion leaves a bunch of dust you can't see through that takes ages to go away. We're sorry."

Not sure what level that one was. Was that after the sattelite fell? Cuz if so, that wasn't a problem for me.

Trial-and-error: Everything is trial and error if you're bad enough. That's not "lazy". That's "it exists". Opening a door could be trial and error if somebody was sufficiently bad at it.

Really?

The implication that I suck at BC2.

Boy, did I never get that, ever?

Well, I'm sorry if I'm not good at a game that hates the player.

I don't think it was so much "implication that you suck" as much as just "you suck", but you can flatter yourself if you want to. And you didn't refute my point. Everything is trial and error if you're bad enough. Apparently, (at least in BC2) you're bad enough.

Though, I didn't consider this until just now, I am routinely told that I am better at Battlefield games than I deserve to be, considering how terrible I am at other games. It's almost savant level, I swear.

I forget what note the campaign ended on, so I can't address that.

Spoiler

Russian invasion.

Okay, yeah, that's pretty unoriginal. But there aren't too many nations that can stand against the US, and we're too buddy-buddy with China to use them.

And I feel like part of the reason you're upset about that is that you live in Russia. (Maybe I'm wrong? I dunno. I feel like Americans wouldn't like a game where they're the villain, so maybe it's both ways)

(Also, I think that after a game's been out for a year, you don't need to use spoiler tags on it, really)

I was being a smartass. Nobody "abides" by a smartass comment. Hell, "abide" doesn't even seem to mean what you think it does. When talking about definitions, using the right words is a good idea.

This thread isn't even on the second page, and it's starting to get flame-y. Sorry for that, E-crew.

Improper use of a word with English not being my first language. Clearly you have defeated me.

Didn't know you were Russian until after I posted. My bad.

 

[Siberian Relic]

I'll never understand a developer's need to put their products on a pedestal and boast about it months before release. Every single time I've heard this sort of nonsense in the past few years (many of which were under EA's banner), it's preceded a boilerplate, lazy game. Really kills my enthusiasm for a game when someone like DICE starts talking about how pathetic their competition is rather than letting their bloody game speak for itself.

 

[Ajna]

It's funny that this guy is saying something about "laziness" when it comes to single-player campaign while being part of DICE.

You can say that again. DICE is just as lazy as the rest of them, and Battlefield games never even HAD a narrative campaign before Bad Company. Unless BF finally has it's singleplayer make use of wide open areas with combined operations of soldiers and vehicles (you know, where BF's strength has always been), then it's just going to be another craptastic corridor shooter like COD is.

They shouldn't see COD as their rival- they should see Flashpoint and Homefront as their rivals.

Didn't Battlefield: Modern Combat's campaign do just that? It's been a while since I played it, but I think so.

Also, though I understand what you mean with "rival", when it comes to money, COD is their main rival. Flashpoint/Homefront are really more "allies", because if they do well, that means there are more people playing "tactical" shooters, and thus more people they can interest. While COD has the main share, there's a huge group of people out there who may not (or, probably, do not) know that "tactical shooters" is an actual term.

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

True. I forgot about that level. But I feel that my point is still valid. Buildings = bland, no buildings = bland.

Even bland stuff can at least try to be engaging.

Not sure what level that one was. Was that after the sattelite fell? Cuz if so, that wasn't a problem for me.

The almost very last one.

I don't remember what its goal was, I just remember it being a terrible exercise in bullshit and frustration.

Then again, all of the desert levels in BC2 are that.

I don't think it was so much "implication that you suck" as much as just "you suck", but you can flatter yourself if you want to. And you didn't refute my point. Everything is trial and error if you're bad enough. Apparently, (at least in BC2) you're bad enough.

Though, I didn't consider this until just now, I am routinely told that I am better at Battlefield games than I deserve to be, considering how terrible I am at other games. It's almost savant level, I swear.

Very called for.

Also, yes, I guess I'm bad enough. Mostly because not everyone has an HD TV, and I can't see jack through the dust. Or counter the endless snipers who always have the high ground.

Yes, I did finish the game. I just wasn't having any fun.

Okay, yeah, that's pretty unoriginal. But there aren't too many nations that can stand against the US, and we're too buddy-buddy with China to use them.

And I feel like part of the reason you're upset about that is that you live in Russia. (Maybe I'm wrong? I dunno. I feel like Americans wouldn't like a game where they're the villain, so maybe it's both ways)

(Also, I think that after a game's been out for a year, you don't need to use spoiler tags on it, really)

My favorite game is Modern Warfare 2, solely due to the singleplayer.

It's hard to offend me in that regard. I just think that for a game that loves to lampoon cliches, they really could've come up with something better for a cliffhanger.

 

[Jonny49]

I like DICE, but after playing BC2's campaign I can't take this statement seriously.

That was about as lazy as most campaigns come.

 

[thepyrethatburns]

I guess EA's other game Medal of Honor doesn't count as competition...ROFL god i could not type that with a straight face XD

Still don't get the Medal of Honor hate around here. Despite what Extra Credits would have you believe, the game actually sold over 4 million copies on the consoles. Admittedly, it's PC sales figures suck at 300K worldwide but something that sells over 4 million copies isn't bad.

Gameplay: I don't think anything in it was lazy. Wasn't there a section where a helicopter is chasing you through a tunnel, or something like that?

General: Those aren't ideas. Those are special effects.
Michael Bay: I....don't understand the difference.
General: We know you don't.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

(Also, I think that after a game's been out for a year, you don't need to use spoiler tags on it, really)[/b]

You really do. There is no time limit for spoilers - if it's spoiled it's spoiled.

 

[HerbertTheHamster]

And Bad Company 2 wasn't lazy?

 

[Ajna]

True. I forgot about that level. But I feel that my point is still valid. Buildings = bland, no buildings = bland.

Even bland stuff can at least try to be engaging.

True. But are you saying that DICE didn't try to be engaging? Wouldn't that mean they actively tried not to be engaging? I'm pretty sure it's one or the other.

I don't think it was so much "implication that you suck" as much as just "you suck", but you can flatter yourself if you want to. And you didn't refute my point. Everything is trial and error if you're bad enough. Apparently, (at least in BC2) you're bad enough.

Though, I didn't consider this until just now, I am routinely told that I am better at Battlefield games than I deserve to be, considering how terrible I am at other games. It's almost savant level, I swear.

Very called for.

Not sure if that's sarcasm.

Okay, yeah, that's pretty unoriginal. But there aren't too many nations that can stand against the US, and we're too buddy-buddy with China to use them.

And I feel like part of the reason you're upset about that is that you live in Russia. (Maybe I'm wrong? I dunno. I feel like Americans wouldn't like a game where they're the villain, so maybe it's both ways)

(Also, I think that after a game's been out for a year, you don't need to use spoiler tags on it, really)

My favorite game is Modern Warfare 2, solely due to the singleplayer.

It's hard to offend me in that regard. I just think that for a game that loves to lampoon cliches, they really could've come up with something better for a cliffhanger.

MW2 did at least do something original with its ending. True.

But what would you suggest BC2 do that would be better? And you've got to remember, DICE wants to make money just as much as the next guy. They needed some sort of sequel hook.

 

[Ajna]

Gameplay: I don't think anything in it was lazy. Wasn't there a section where a helicopter is chasing you through a tunnel, or something like that?

General: Those aren't ideas. Those are special effects.
Michael Bay: I....don't understand the difference.
General: We know you don't.

Not sure where the quotes from, but presentation is sort of the point in visual art.

(Also, I think that after a game's been out for a year, you don't need to use spoiler tags on it, really)[/b]

You really do. There is no time limit for spoilers - if it's spoiled it's spoiled.

Yeah, and it's already been spoiled elswhere. Several times.