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
@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).
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).
@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.
@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.
@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 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
