I understand the ideals of gaming companies making expansions and DLCs but why make them crap?? I mean, us as Gamers, some of us are more privileged than others, I’m not gonna break my money-plan for games if I want to build my monster rig.. which would you guys put first? a monster rig for your dream job or games. I already know the answer – it’s awesome if you agree with me.
I don’t mind picking one game a year sort of thing and then subbing for some expansions, but I have to say I’m not impressed, Over the years it had always been the Developers in the driving seat, but somewhere along the line these guys like Activision, EA .. I could go far and say Naughty Dog and Rockstar Games (Publishers; not the Dev team! fyi!) They’ve pushed these deadlines out, that exceed the limit of our beloved Developer’s talent, sure – shoot for the stars guys but c’mon be realistic – they want you to build a game, but not just any game, an AWESOME GAME, and they also want you to build DLC? and that has to be awesome too?? aiight Hold it.. something’s got to break, the workflow just isn’t fast enough for it work that way, I remember a time before “Microtransactions” damn straight I’m looking at you EA. We bought a game, it came with a nice little surprise and it was – yeah!!! AWESOME!! the Game was awesome the DLC was awesome, and when the time came when the team had finished any DLC they were working on – that was awesome too!
I suppose I get that feeling that Publishers think they’re not making enough money so they have to push innovation, and improvisation, be the “FIRST!” to do this, or that. let’s talk about DICE, slightly off topic since they’re a Dev team in Sweden.
DICE created Battlefield in a dorm as a bunch of 5 students playing pinball games on PC – genius. (note this wasn’t actually sarcasm)
They made something purely based on a game mode on a massive scale, this was innovation, while Infinity Ward pulled off all the memorial Call of Duty games to which I will add (a remake wouldn’t go a miss)
BattleField 1942 was published by EA because it was a big deal. think of the date, time, year. We would have had, Doom, Quake, Wolfenstein 3D, Unreal Tournament all competitive FPS Games, so why pick Battlefield 1942??
It’s easy – it was the first game to include extreme elements of co-operation and teamwork, not just the accuracy of the vehicles.
2001 they announced it’s release to the Xbox (retro not 360 or XB1 just xbox) but was later cancelled because EA wanted to work on Expansion content for PC, this is a great example of misplaced control, DICE would have done better releasing to consoles, hiring specific software developers to improve their engine: better the game physics, 3D rendering and overall performance.
Go to present day – we now see the result of the control, DICE should have released BattleField 3 on all Platforms, PS3,PS4,Xbox360,XboxOne and PC. The constant flow of updates the game received was just.. … ..
This also applies to Battlefield 4 – They have a much needed game engine which mostly ALL Developers call the Iron E – Internet Explorer , and if you’re an enthusiast/Student like I am – you could say CryEngine and UE3/4 are the equivalent to Firefox and Chrome, with Unity looking like Apple’s Safari browser. That’s the going joke anyway.
I Think really They just need to start adopting other ways to better games instead of trying to appeal to similar communities (i.e the CoD community who really don’t know how to play the series fully just so they can complain this weapon’s O.P., or that weapon’s U.P..) This way – transitions from other communities to the one in discussion (could be BF, could be idk, we could say like a really bad game no body likes.. Farm Princess Saga? is that even a Game?)
Either way – thanks for reading, We all need a good rant about gaming. I guess I like to do mine without debate.
On another note – Just LOOK AT DESTINY – Activision actually did some good.