Forum Discussion
- 6 years ago@Flyingcows121 Guess it depends on what you are looking for, I personally want a more competitive game
- 6 years ago@Flyingcows121 I agree with you. PvZ has always managed to walk the line very well between competitive gaming and a game for players of all skill levels.
Take Chomper for example. At first glance, it takes no skill to use him. He has an instant kill ability that can take out any unprepared player instantly. This makes him playable for anyone of any skill level. But when he takes out a player using that ability, it leaves him extremely exposed and easy to kill.
Inexperienced players play as Chomper. The mid tear ability players typically abandon him because they realize all they can manage is a 1:1 kill death ratio.
Then there are the experienced players. Ones who have taken the time to understand Chomper. They understand how to be sneaky and yet rush into the middle of the fight unsuspected. They really understand his moveset, his digestion time, and when to grab players. These experienced players are almost always on pedestals at the end of the match for kill streak and total kills. It is difficult and takes a lot of practice to be these Chomper players.
This game has layers and is competitive for players of all ages and experience levels because of characters like Chomper.- 6 years ago
To me, it's very important that PvZ remains a game for players of all skill levels. It keeps the number of available players for each installment high for an extended period of time. I'm convinced this is one of the reasons I can still play Garden Warfare 1 and there's always a full team on both sides of turf takeover ready to play. A lot of similar games can't say the same thing 6 years after launch.
- 6 years ago
@newbebop wrote:To me, it's very important that PvZ remains a game for players of all skill levels. It keeps the number of available players for each installment high for an extended period of time. I'm convinced this is one of the reasons I can still play Garden Warfare 1 and there's always a full team on both sides of turf takeover ready to play. A lot of similar games can't say the same thing 6 years after launch.
New characters (such as Nightcap) cover that.
- 6 years ago@Flyingcows121 I keep saying that the reason this isn't called GW3 is because it's an experiment. They want to see if this works and if it doesn't.. they can go back to the GW franchise... but the last thing I want to see is this turn into another BATTLEFIELD... where we have PVZ GW3 and then BFN2 coming out back to back etc.
- 6 years ago@The3rdLetter God, I hope so. I want a TRUE successor to GW2!!!
- 6 years ago
Not trying to be rude, but that way too naive thinkin.
That.......experiment a little to expensive don't you think? How much resources(Money and time) been used to create BfN? If BfN gonna fail chances that EA give green light for another game even for GW3?
So its much more that they CAN'T go to GW franchise. Devs release PvZ3 on smartphones, and if those will be succesfull, they gonna work on it untill stop bein profitable, and then another mobile game. If mobile game fail too, well you know EA...
- 6 years ago@Flyingcows121 I also agree that 'competition' isn't everything with these games, this isn't Call of Duty, this game needs to remain lighthearted, customizable, and fun for EVERYONE...young, old, competitive, or just free-roam and relax...
- 6 years ago
@YayHorseys wrote:
@Flyingcows121I also agree that 'competition' isn't everything with these games, this isn't Call of Duty, this game needs to remain lighthearted, customizable, and fun for EVERYONE...young, old, competitive, or just free-roam and relax...Fun for competitive gamers does not at all describe GW2 and variants, much less 99% of games being lopsided lobbies or hacked by code/script editing.
I would say Battle Arena and the removal of variants is Popcap’s attempt to make the series more competitive... it’s NOT supposed to be GW3 and perhaps that is the reason many people are disappointed.
For the record, GW2 could’ve been competitive with variants but it’s almost impossible to “balance” that many characters when so many modes exist.
EDIT: To be clear I wasn’t picking on your statement, just wanted to give my opinion regarding the competitive nature of the game in relation to those before it.
😊
- 6 years ago
This isn't addressing anyone in particular, or meant to sound critical, just picking up on the competitive theme.
BFN with its new elements & the opportunity to discuss the game is perhaps highlighting competitive play by individuals (rather than competitive team objectives) which not all of us are comfortable with in the traditional modes.
I think the team have been trying to make turf less so, with changes to the boasts for example. I do think perhaps 1st base needs more & team swapping definitely.
Battle Arena may help more competitive players find a mode that's more to their liking.
I do think @Splash_damage has a good point in reminding us we do need to bear in mind that much as we love GW1 & 2, they weren't without issues in that area. Lopsided lobbies were an awful issue in both. The original game was rather unfair on plants always being in defence - you could only get a long game as a plant if you were getting wrecked (or playing at the back of the map & letting your team get wrecked). I LOVED the variants in GW2 but they did unbalance play if lots of elemental ones in particular were used. The fact is we played these games so long we almost forgot the issues were there because we learned to cope with them!!
About Plants vs. Zombies™ Franchise Discussion
Recent Discussions
- 12 hours ago