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
@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.
@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
