Portal will kill the other game modes.
The response that Portal is getting, I am pretty sure, this game mode will kill the other two. Unless DICE does something drastic. In a matter of weeks/months, DICE will understand the reasoning b...
Forum Discussion
@TheFireOfTitan No worries, my post wasn't written to dismiss your views, just a general observation/counterpoint.
I've got my own concerns about core, not begrudging anyone else theirs (or anyone for liking what they've seen for that matter).
Everyone's got their own subjective take, hopefully between core or portal, now that we've got some actual information on the latter, those looking for some kind of BF experience should be able to find something they can enjoy.
Still fairly certain HZ isn't aimed at old battlefield players, but we'll see 🙂
I've got my own concerns about core, not begrudging anyone else theirs (or anyone for liking what they've seen for that matter).
Everyone's got their own subjective take, hopefully between core or portal, now that we've got some actual information on the latter, those looking for some kind of BF experience should be able to find something they can enjoy.
Still fairly certain HZ isn't aimed at old battlefield players, but we'll see 🙂
@Fringerunner What’s old to you? I’ve been playing BF since the release of BFBC2 and I’m really looking forward to HZ. Currently my favorite games are Apex and BF5.
I don’t really like Tarkov, but I love the concept of it. EFT feels really clunky, slow, and convoluted to me. So a battlefield version is really exciting to me, if that’s what it’s going to be.
I don’t really like Tarkov, but I love the concept of it. EFT feels really clunky, slow, and convoluted to me. So a battlefield version is really exciting to me, if that’s what it’s going to be.
- @RaginSam 1942? I mean, it had nothing to do with my point, but if you want a numerical answer, there you go even though it has no real value.
The point was those that preferred when battlefield was fine with it's own identity and added new game modes and experiments as DLC rather than try to copy what made other games successful and throw that into the core game at launch, a trend which arguably started with 4.
(i never minded the BC series, i even quite liked 2 though i saw it much like hardline, it's own thing)
I put quite a lot of time into 4 despite some early misgivings about weapons feeling generic vs 3 (3/4/2142 would probably be my favorites if i take off the nostalgia glasses regarding 1942/2), but 1 had a significantly lower time investment, and BF5 lost me within half a year or so and i'm not much of a fan to this day for a variety of reasons.
I'm not even going to talk about the battlefront games.
I did take some pains to point out i don't begrudge anyone their own preferences, but since you seem to have latched on to me not seeing HZ fitting into what i (subjectively) see as a BF game, i'll simply say i don't particularly care for them shoving carbon copies of other games' draws into BF's core, and/or slapping the franchise name on things that have little to nothing to do with "classic" BF without making it a branch title (like BC or Hardline)
If i want to play division's dark zone/tarkov/BR/hero shooter games I'll simply go play them, and i expect a certain formula when buying a BF game that's not really tied to those.
(that doesn't mean all change is bad, but 1 and 5 for instance did not work for me. Subjectively)
As i pointed out repeatedly before though, i also don't mind them throwing something like HZ in when i can simply opt out, though it's arguable that the specialists *obviously* made for HZ being thrown into the core game deviates from that preference, but i'm still going to actually play the finished product before i decide if it's a detriment or not, much like 1 and 5.
All that said, you seem to like the HZ concept so maybe that is the way forward for Dice and i'm in the minority, it's still just two slightly opposed viewpoints on a forum for now and time will tell either way.
And the only consequence of me not enjoying core or HZ is that i don't play them, or if portal also fails to scratch the itch, 2042 as a whole.
No bitterness or anything behind that, sometimes people simply don't like games for all kinds of subjective reasons, much like why i don't play Apex, CoD, or Overwatch. (just to throw some examples out there. Note that i didn't say they were bad games, just that i don't like them). I think Portal is going to be very popular, but I don't see it killing the other modes. It will for sure be the place for people who don't want specialists, but All Out Warfare will still have a playerbase.
@FringerunnerSome very good points, well presented.
I don't understand why TDM was/is a mode in an objective based game such as Battlefield BUT accept that many do so I would never campaign for its removal, the same goes for Hardcore.
And this is what I don't get (and not directed at you personally)....
Dislike a mode all you want but simply don't play it. Hazard Zone seems to be getting a similar reaction as Firestorm did and on the face of it, that's fine as everyone has different likes and dislikes.
Specialists aside though, and as with Firestorm, why are people saying it shouldn't be part of Battlefield, simply don't play it but I believe you should try everything at least once, who knows, you might like it! I, whilst I don't get it, as I said I would never suggest that TDM should be removed.Portal is the only reason all of us who hate specialist will even consider buying this game.
and i hate the fact that they will think we are buying this game because of the base 2042 game.
i wish portal was separate that way they know how stupid their decision was for this specialist crap, when portal would out sell the normal game.
@Fringerunner wrote:
The point was those that preferred when battlefield was fine with it's own identity and added new game modes and experiments as DLC rather than try to copy what made other games successful and throw that into the core game at launch, a trend which arguably started with 4.@Fringerunner This is a hugely important part IMO. Most of the pushback from core players is due to Battlefield ignoring its own history and identity to chase trends as the entire main game instead of experimenting with a small side diversion. We've generally been fine small experiments to add more players as long as the core experience remained "Battlefield" since we could ignore the side diversion. Friends of mine use to talk about DICE shaking up the etchasketch and starting over each time instead of building on long term success after Battlefield 4 when they started making the Battlefront games. 2042 seems to be a far more extreme version of that Post Battlefront thought process.
I still think that DICE should make Class based presets for the core 2042 game play experience to run side by side with the Specialist versions in All Out Warfare. Not only would they solve problems by appeasing both sets of players (and by extension garner good will after BF5) they can get empirical data on exactly what the players want by watching server population numbers.
@Trokey66 wrote:
@FringerunnerSome very good points, well presented.
I don't understand why TDM was/is a mode in an objective based game such as Battlefield BUT accept that many do so I would never campaign for its removal, the same goes for Hardcore.@Trokey66 TDM was in 1942 and in the mid 90s to 2002 when '42 was released TDM was a standard multiplayer game mode for FPSs so that's most likely why it's been in the game since the beginning despite other modes being objective based.
@ragnarok013 Yep, i agree, though i think that's why we have portal to begin with.,
The repeat use of that wholescale change process and results not meeting expectations over multiple games and this time someone went "hold on a minute, let's have a plan B this time".
Granted, you know my thoughts on initial advertising vs where the internal push seemed to be going, so either their marketing team is schizophrenic/extremely cynical or there's been a lot of disagreements behind closed doors about exactly that thought process and where 2042 should be going vs future success.
I've speculated wildly about this being studio vs studio vs publisher, but i doubt that'll ever be discussed in public and it really doesn't matter much at this point.
As i said before, now portal seems less a love letter and more a failsafe, and I'm guessing exactly that data you're talking about is going to be measured with core vs portal.
(and yes, your solution would make it seem a lot less forced in that regard, shame it doesn't look like that idea was taken to heart)
And @Trokey66 , i was basically going to post something about quake/doom/UT and people expecting TDM as a feature back when it all started and it's remained solely due to habit but Ragnarok ninja'd in before me!
@ragnarok013I'm not disputing that. My point is, I don't see the point of TDM in Battlefield but would not actively campaign for its removal because I know there are plenty that do and I have other choices.
This is why I don't get the upset around Hazard Zone and Firestorm.
If you don't like it fine, you have other choices crack on with them but others do/will like them so why want them removed?
I don't buy the "but recourses could be used elsewhere" argument. If Hazard Zone (and Firestorm) were canned, EA/DICE would probably see that as mostly a saving and not spread that budget elsewhere, certainly with regards to any future support.- @ragnarok013 Imagine if Portal was the base game and All Out War was the side game with Specialists. Do you think everyone would be flocking to All Out War? I think not. That's how polarizing the base game is right now. The forums will be DELICIOUS next weekend!
- @TheFireOfTitan I love it AND outright hate it.
Is that OK?
@Trokey66 wrote:
@ragnarok013I'm not disputing that. My point is, I don't see the point of TDM in Battlefield but would not actively campaign for its removal because I know there are plenty that do and I have other choices.
This is why I don't get the upset around Hazard Zone and Firestorm.
If you don't like it fine, you have other choices crack on with them but others do/will like them so why want them removed?
I don't buy the "but recourses could be used elsewhere" argument. If Hazard Zone (and Firestorm) were canned, EA/DICE would probably see that as mostly a saving and not spread that budget elsewhere, certainly with regards to any future support.@Trokey66 I also do not actively campaign for game modes to be removed; like you I just don't play them. I think there is at least some merit with the thought that if an ill conceived game mode like Firestorm wasn't even considered because they know their player base and as a result didn't chase trends (basic sales and business development...know your customer) there could have been re-allocations of funding to other parts of the game -but also maybe not depending on funding how each portion of funding was approved. We don't exactly get insight into EA's development processes. But I think you're right that cancelling a failed mode like firestorm is probably a development cost savings and not money being reallocated to strengthen other parts of the game.
Featured Places
