Wasdie's forum posts

Avatar image for Wasdie
#1 Edited by Wasdie (53592 posts) -

The existence of cheaters in PC multiplayer games doesn't somehow change the fact that both PSN and XBL are terrible platforms.

The consoles, in terms of their ability to handle the needs of multiplayer gaming, are barebones. The universal shared friends list is the only real benefit, and even then the PC has a multitude of alternatives that are widely used and far more flexible.

Console gamers don't know what it's like being part of a gaming community that has a permanent home. At all times of the day through Discord I'm connected with 2-3 well established communities of friends that play a multitude of games. We utilize a combination of Discord and Teamspeak to have persistent voice communications in and out of games. I'm never disconnected from them and we can very easily coordinate over periods of time when gameplay sessions are happening. Doing this on a console is pretty much impossible. They just don't have the tools or interface.

Luckily Discord can be, and is, used by all. It's just a bit more awkward having to utilize a second piece of hardware to interface with Discord on the consoles. Having seamless integration would be amazing. The ability for Discord to be the primary method of VoiP and text chat in persistent channels with multiple VoiP channels per is extremely flexible and helps foster strong gaming communities.

The problem is you're paying $60 a year for an inferior service to be able to access half of the games you also purchased for $60. It's a pure scam.

Avatar image for Wasdie
#2 Edited by Wasdie (53592 posts) -

Though I think it's pretty obvious of what's really going on here. The Premium model with separated DLCs wasn't popular anymore. Declining sales of them with Hardline, BF1, and the first Battlefront proved to DICE and EA that they needed a new monitization scheme. They tried hamfisting it into Battlefront 2 which compeltely backfired on them. So now this is a new approach.

EA is forcing (or generally pressuring) DICE to try to increase the profit margins as high as possible. Cosmetic microtransactions fit the bill perfectly. Character based cosmetics don't make sense with a two faction history game so they basically forgo any sort of art grounded in reality for a template they can more easily layer with cosmetics. It also makes a lot of sense to have fully customizeable characters in that situation. Thus multiple races and sexes. No problems there. It's just a video game after all.

The issues is that it looks like DICE is trying to misdirect the reason why they are going the direction with the art that they are. It's pretty obvious it's so they can pump in the microtransactions like crazy to make up for the lack of post-launch DLC. Rather than just staying quiet and continuing pushing forward with marketing (which I have to refer back to my last post of how terrible it is), they feel like they had to go defend their decisions personally. That's when the whole accusations of sexism and the whole "don't buy our game" crap happened.

There were always going to be sexist idiots who speak loudly. CoD WWII had the same backlash but the developer never lashed out. They just kept chugging along like those voice didn't exist. DICE should have done the same. Instead they decided to stir the pot further. It makes no sense to me. They aren't winning over people who wouldn't have bought the game previously just because they decided to defend their decision to put women in the game. They didn't need to defend it. It just is what it is and people would have accepted it just fine.

So now we're in a situation where any criticism against the game, of which there are plenty of legitimate ones, are met with you being labeled a sexist. It's not a good situation for them if they want to actually improve upon their game before launch during the alpha and beta.

Avatar image for Wasdie
#3 Edited by Wasdie (53592 posts) -

It seems the developers and their more loyal fanbase has decided to deflect every single ounce of criticism of the game as being sexist. That's a very quick way to become completely tone deaf and oblivious to the glaring issues of the game.

BFV has a lot of things off about it. First off it doesn't seem to address any of the criticism of BF1. It looks like, yet again, we're getting a more solo-focused Battlefield experience with a very low amount of specialization per class. The Alpha proved that there's no real point in taking and holding any point. Rather it's more effective to just constantly attack and overwhelm the enemy simply by shooting better than them. This leads to the issue we've had basically since BF3 of two armies kind of avoiding each other as they circle the map. BF3's map design at least had natural chokepoints that prevented this, same with BF4, but in BF1 there were many situations where you could just ignore captured territory and hit unprotected flanks easily. It was not good design.

BFV did a bunch of stuff that, on paper, sounded like it would address those issues. Removing AoE heal/support, being able to build defenses, and having limited ammo. Problem is, in reality, none of those really worked out. Being locked to animations is more annoying yet doesn't really slow down the experience. Limited ammo is more of an annoyance than a real deterrence. Built defenses crumble immediately and aren't worth the time exposing yourself to sniper fire as you build.

In addition to that, vehicle balance is not very good with tanks dropping way too quickly to infantry. Aircraft feel like garbage and don't seem to affect the battlefield as they get destroyed by tanks pretty much immediately. Infantry balance still seems to suffer from incredibly versatile sniper class.

Furthermore they are tripling down on player customization and now have shown off their "subclass" system to be basically gated progression for classes and guns. So now there's a level of grinding you need to do to unlock things and then there's straight upgrades for simply playing more. This is the exact opposite of the direction they should be going for a full on team game. More specialization among equal classes, not gated progression unlocking more abilities.

Finally, the cosmetics are dumb and the marketing is dumb. CoD WWII let you played as a black female nazi. It was stupid, but the developer never made a big deal about it outside of saying that the MP has full character customization including race and gender. That was it. EA, on the other hand, feels like they have to plaster every trailer and video with female soliders along side of Kratos. Because of this, the setting is super ambiguous. Just looking at the marketing it's super difficult to tell the game is supposed to be set in WWII. There are literally zero solider looking characters running around. Men and women wearing all sorts of weird, nearly steampunk attire, completely devoid of any military uniform or identification. This is juxtaposed against the very realistic looking setting. It's just seems to lack any sort of coherent art style and feels like it's a big mess.

Another major issue with the marketing is the fact that they are trying to focus on the "Battlefield Moment" rather than the actual minute-to-minute gameplay. The "Battlefield Moments" are a result of the base mechanics meshing in such a way where some insane stuff can happen on a per game basis. However, those mechanics weren't specifically tuned to create those moments. Rather the game was tuned around its core gameplay and the "Battlefield Moments" were just a positive consequence. DICE seems to want to try to put as much random shit in the game to focus on the ridiculous moments rather than building a cohesive game.

The original announcement was puzzling too. They spent 30 minutes talking about how immersive of an experience they wanted to build and how they wanted the single player to be full of drama and blah blah blah. Everything was indicating they wanted a very serious and realistic tone. Then they gave us the trailer which was the exact opposite of that in every way. It was loaded with ridiculous cosmetics, stupid one liners, a mess of highly scripted action that in no way represents gameplay, and didn't look at all like it was even set in WWII. The subsequent trailers since have been all over the place. Some are a bit more traditional and more focused on two sides fighting in a WWII setting, others seem to focus on the ridiculous cosmetics and variation and general lunacy that they've put in. Again, it's not coherent. It's all just a mess.

Having women characters in a WWII game is odd but also not gamebreaking at all. Again, I look to CoD WWII that had both genders and a bunch of races that could play either side. It worked fine. It was never the focus and, when you played the game you just didn't care. The biggest differences is that the CoD WWII devs kept a consistent, period correct, art style and at least a consistent tone (consistent within the scope of CoD's general blockbuster approach) with the costumes and settings and made it so the factions at least looked like their proper real world counterparts. That's not present in BFV at all and it's super confusing. Why are people beating others with cricket bats in the open field? How is that WWII at all?

So there's a lot of issues with the whole game before you even get to the issue of the really ugly cosmetics and tonal choices of the marketing, but all of which are being brushed aside because any critics of their game are sexist. That's not the road they should go down.

Avatar image for Wasdie
#4 Posted by Wasdie (53592 posts) -

The games you talked about don't have 10 player networking with destructible environments. It's going to be a CPU related limitation to being able to do 60 fps, the only acceptable level for such a level of a competitive game. Those two also were acceptable with framerate dips.

The whole point of siege is the destruction and how the operators use it with their unique abilities. Removing that kills the game.

Avatar image for Wasdie
#5 Posted by Wasdie (53592 posts) -
@Ant_17 said:

And somehow consoles hold back games.

That's a dumb statement.

No developer ever builds their games exclusively for the most powerful machines. Games are built for the lowest common denominator which, right now, is the Xbox One followed by the PS4. You can't build games that exceed what the baseline can do.

Avatar image for Wasdie
#6 Posted by Wasdie (53592 posts) -

That's not really surprising. I've heard that the earlier ray tracing demos they've shown were running on their Quadro series, which is a $10k card.

The takeaway is we're a long way from realtime ray tracing.

Avatar image for Wasdie
#7 Posted by Wasdie (53592 posts) -
@Black96Z said:

I was hoping to hear news on H3:ODST for the MCC.

It's gotta just be a matter of time at this point.

Avatar image for Wasdie
#8 Posted by Wasdie (53592 posts) -
@uitravioience said:

So is DayZ a console exclusive?

No. It's already on the PC in Early Access form.

It's been the place where Bohemia Interactive has been rebuilding their engine. The original concept never could be properly executed on the ArmA 2 or 3 engine so they decided to use the project as the living test ground for their reworked engine.

Of course this means DayZ has been in development forever with no end in real sight.

Avatar image for Wasdie
#9 Posted by Wasdie (53592 posts) -
@scatteh316 said:
@Wasdie said:

@scatteh316: You still sound like you're full of shit and you also don't seem to understand the greater picture. A 970 is still capeable today. You saying otherwise doesn't change that. Call me an idiot all you want, but you're the one not living in reality in this situation.

Luckily I see you blithering to this small community. Nobody out in the real world gives a shit. People are still playing on their 970s and buying the latest games despite your crusade against the consoles.

And you sound like someone who's been clowned by their own silly assumptions....

You've never once posted any proof of any of this and you crusade really hard against the PC for somebody who would have spent quite a bit of money and time on their own.

Avatar image for Wasdie
#10 Posted by Wasdie (53592 posts) -
@creepywelps said:

@scatteh316: Yea... I dont believe you.

Sounds like he's reading off of some blog and never actually did any of this himself.