Forum Discussion
228 Replies
@Stew360 The way the game plays, specialists, weapon handling, movement, etc are what feel like COD. Even the weapons seem to be tuned to operate at COD engagement ranges. The almost total removal of destruction is also more like COD than any BF in years. All out warfare just feels like COD MW Groundwar (but actually seems to be worse).
The large maps and 126 players become almost irrelevant when combat is clustered around small points on the map, making it feel like many smaller games joined on the periphery.
I played BF2 back in the day (still have the disc) and it feels nothing like 2042, which is missing a lot of the features BF2 had all those years ago.
As for the BF3 CQC maps being close to COD, that was really only the size of the maps (the majority of which were still bigger than equivalent COD maps). They still kept core features of BF that again are missing from 2042.
Removal of features while trying to ape popular features of other franchises is not evolution, it is devolution. Even then implementation of those features feels bodged (At least COD MW had different specialists on the two sides, allowing hardcore to exist).
I have loved the franchise since BF2 and BF2142 and hope that the game can be pulled back from the brink. Sadly I just don't feel it is possible, or that there is even the will to try (I hope to be proven wrong, but won't hold my breath).
- @AOD_moose004 I read an example of how hard it can be to QA software and the example was....
There is a bug with the '9' on a phone where it will not work.
However, it only manifests itself if the two previous presses are '0' and '1'.
As you would appreciate, you can't test every combination of button presses so missing this bug is not impossible.
Unless some one presses '019', the bug may never manifest itself and on the rare occasion that it may occur, if it isn't indeed to the previous button presses, identifying the actual issue could be very difficult if not impossible. - @Trokey66 Exactly. Even with a compact business system, you can't test every single possible combination of stuff that'll hit it or flow through it. There are automated tools that greatly help but even then most testing has to be risk-based (i.e., check the most important or highest-risk or most mission-critical features and then work backward until you run out of time). I'm not really sure how it works for AAA games...except "not well." Not nowadays anyway. Look at some of the horrendous bugs games like CP2077, Fallout 76, BF2042, COD Vanguard, etc. have been released with in the past 14 months. Glaringly obvious, borderline-gamebreaking stuff.
@Trokey66 wrote:
@AOD_moose004I read an example of how hard it can be to QA software and the example was....
There is a bug with the '9' on a phone where it will not work.
However, it only manifests itself if the two previous presses are '0' and '1'.
As you would appreciate, you can't test every combination of button presses so missing this bug is not impossible.
Unless some one presses '019', the bug may never manifest itself and on the rare occasion that it may occur, if it isn't indeed to the previous button presses, identifying the actual issue could be very difficult if not impossible.button press combination bugs can easily be checked via automation so that isn't the best example
*edit* in my opinion the best way to do a final QA check is to actually have a sufficiently long beta with the launch build and actually analyze results and pay attention to feedback and do it close enough to launch to use the expected launch build but early enough to actually give yourself time to fix it and if you don't have time, push back the launch *as nintendo is famous for doing* until it's done
- @Psubond With 10 digits, even automation may take too long and be cost prohibitive long before the 'magic' combination is hit.
At the end of the day though, it was a simplified example to highlight the difficulties in QAing complex software.
Even an extended Beta may not highlight some/all of the bugs so far encountered.
@Psubond wrote:
@Trokey66 wrote:
@AOD_moose004I read an example of how hard it can be to QA software and the example was....
There is a bug with the '9' on a phone where it will not work.
However, it only manifests itself if the two previous presses are '0' and '1'.
As you would appreciate, you can't test every combination of button presses so missing this bug is not impossible.
Unless some one presses '019', the bug may never manifest itself and on the rare occasion that it may occur, if it isn't indeed to the previous button presses, identifying the actual issue could be very difficult if not impossible.button press combination bugs can easily be checked via automation so that isn't the best example
Actually it is a good example, because it is not just checking the combination, but also then searching why that combination breaks it (it could lead to another issue), getting to the exact line of code, fixing it, then verifying that it fixed it and not break anything else (which is very common in programming).
Either way, EA's response was a justified one. People have been critical that the company was off during the holidays and not working, this is at the same time when many of them have been off of work or school. The community of "vocal" battlefield players seem to enjoy finding every negative issue with the game or the company's responses. Many act like they are entitled to dictate how a game should be developed and if it is not to their exact demands it is a garbage game.
Was the launch good? No, but at the same time it wasn't as bad as some previous titles like BF3 and BF4, which by the way people use as "positive examples" of what a good Battlefield game is. Is the game good? Well this is totally subjective, in all the game is playable and to many enjoyable. Heck I will argue that for some of the people who trash the game, they have put in 100s of hours; if it was so bad why put in that time and spend countless hours continuing to trash the game on here? Instead people want to say the game is broken, not because the game doesn't work, but because it doesn't have the features they want. Personally I think it only allows you to judge if the game is enjoyable, not if it is broken or not. Which brings us full circle to DICE's response, because the "vocal community" has lashed out on DICE with irrational expectations along with bashing them for making changes in the game that are well within their right.
- @VBALL_MVP finding and fixing are two different things. button combo checks can be automated and if one doesn't pass testing it is logged and then a human investigates the failures
i don't care if they're off. i care that they couldn't be bothered to communicate. if you're in charge the big paycheck comes with some responsibilities such as taking a few min to communicate with the customers
@Trokey66 wrote:
@PsubondWith 10 digits, even automation may take too long and be cost prohibitive long before the 'magic' combination is hit.
At the end of the day though, it was a simplified example to highlight the difficulties in QAing complex software.
Even an extended Beta may not highlight some/all of the bugs so far encountered.i never said that it would find ALL of the bugs and i truly hope you are not trying to make the case that because it's hard to QA a game they shouldn't bother.
as for the button testing a human wouldn't be faster and not doing it is unacceptable.
multiple computers running the test to split up the work means it would not take that long. you aren't trying to break 256 bit encryption, you are testing button press combos and you don't need to build a robot that actually pushes buttons you just need to send the button presses to the xbox/ps/pc via an interface instead of a controller (yes, we don't have them but i'm sure the devs do. there is no way they have to have an actual person do everything)
@Psubond wrote:
@VBALL_MVPfinding and fixing are two different things. button combo checks can be automated and if one doesn't pass testing it is logged and then a human investigates the failures
i don't care if they're off. i care that they couldn't be bothered to communicate. if you're in charge the big paycheck comes with some responsibilities such as taking a few min to communicate with the customersAnd automating it takes time to create a algorithm to do that portion, and just like the code you are testing needs to be checked. To automate something to check something one time, doesn't make much sense to put additional costs to do that. Also it assumes again that is the only issue.
The fact you don't care they are off is exactly why DICE has called the community "brutal". I mean I don't want to be bothered when I am off. So basically what you are saying, is "do what I want and expect, but I am exempt from all the same expectations".
Even after he deleted the tweet, his replacement tweet still sounded like we were the ones at fault for not understanding his message... :/
Featured Places
