|
There's a lot of business reasons
to do this title, but it also gives off that feeling of enthusiasm.
You know what I mean? I have the feeling that
the developers are not disappointed to be working on it.
BC: We make a lot of really
awesome titles in our studio, but I think Battlefield Heroes
is the most popular team to work on. Because we're working with tried
and tested technology, we have a kind-of "anything goes" feel,
we've got this fun, cartoony art style.
And this is, you know, we've
gone out there and announced as part of EA's new play-for-free strategy,
but this is an idea that originated in DICE, and all the guys on the
team -- myself included -- really believe in it. We're not out there
to screw people; we're out there to create something which is fun and
free, and blows things wide open for a new consumer.
One thing that Min Kim also said,
to refer to his words again -- I mean, on one hand it's kind
of cheesy to keep referring to things he said, on the other hand, Nexon
is industry-leading.
BC: He's the dude. Yeah.
Nexon's games don't attract the
same people that play other MMOs. He said one misconception is that
people expect that Nexon's sharing an audience with
WoW, but really it has a whole different audience, and the games
attract different people. And that seems to be the same with your game.
I mean in terms of the gameplay -- the fact that one sniper round is
not going to hit you in the head and kill you, as you mentioned.
Can you talk about that?
BC: Yeah. We kind of see ourselves
as an opportunity for Battlefield. And I've been a Battlefield
fan since before they were called Battlefield games. DICE, before
they were DICE, made a game called Codename Eagle, which I used
to love back in 1999.
And I saw in that great potential for a mainstream
game. And there's just something so fun and so easy about jumping in
and out of vehicles, shooting your gun, and just the free-form sandbox
nature of the game.
So yeah, we are targeting a new demographic,
I think, and one of the key new demographics is going to be younger
guys who maybe can't afford the high-end PC, they can't afford an Xbox
360, but they want to be playing a game that's kind of like what their
big brother plays.
Or maybe they've got a laptop for school, and it's
kind of low system spec. So we want to try to engage an audience that
is frustrated because they don't have access to gaming the same way
that the rest of us do.
Well, it's funny, because -- I'll
do this again -- I was at Austin GDC, and Raph Koster said that consoles
are a niche market.
BC: Yeah. Absolutely. I mean, I love
Raph, and I'm always inspired when I hear him speak. He really comes
out of left field, but if you follow what he's talking about, what he
predicts kind of tends to come true a couple of years later.
And I think
he's absolutely right. If you look at the amount of PCs that are out
there, we're talking hundreds and hundreds of millions; if you look
at the amount of PS3s and 360s, we're talking tens of millions, barely.
So, absolutely, people think that the PC is dying, but that's a crazy
idea.
It's not dying, it's changing. What
I think is dying -- and I'll be brutally honest about it -- is I think
that sixty dollar packaged software on the PC is dying, and I think
that non-connected experiences on the PC are dying, and I think that
if people want the single player experience in this generation
they're going to -- you know, they sold, you know, 7 million copies
of Call of Duty 4, but they sold 250,000 of them on PC. Not a
huge percentage; not like in the past.
BC: I think we're going to continue
to see high-end packaged good games on the PC. But I think they're going
to, as you say, have an element of connectivity; they're going to have
an element of persistence which you need to be connected online to do;
and they're going to be, probably, more multiplayer focused.
So I think
that the Battlefield franchise is well placed, not only to continue
in this more casual market, with Battlefield Heroes, but as we
continue our more traditional line of Battlefield games, we're
going to continue to do the same kind of game, and the same kind of
service as we have done in the past.
One thing that's also very striking
about it is the aesthetic. Not just the character aesthetic,
but the big anime blue sky, clouds, and flowers.
That contrasts wildly with Battlefield's traditional look.
BC: Yeah, and we deliberately contrasted
with ourself, because we've got two very successful games out there
-- there are still hundreds of thousands of people out there playing
BF2 and Battlefield 2142, and we didn't want to confuse them
by creating yet another realistic-looking game.
And also, our art director
is kind of frustrated by this gritty, realistic fashion. And if you
look at the success of the Wii, for example, there's definitely a market,
a frustrated market, that want a more fun experience. They don't want
to be crawling around in mud for their entertainment.
|
Thats just a stupid answer. They've created way more than 2 great maps. These guys have years of experience. Aaah well, it's "free". So I shouldn't complain.
I don't think shooting for the extremes (2 great maps only or 50 mixed bag ones) is the way to go either. Optimize and go for quality, but continue to give people some variety so that the game doesn't get old.
BF 1942: 16 maps included with retail release.
BF 2: 15 maps included with retail release
BF 2142: 13 maps included with retail release.
Even with all the expansions/boosters/patches, I dont think any one BF game had 50 official maps
The maps EA includes have been going down with each release. In general they tend to sell expansion packs if they want to include more maps.
Anyway, dont get me wrong, I think its good to concentrate on a few good maps (look at Team Fortress 2, I love that game and it had about 6 official maps on release) but I'm just arguing about someone claiming the specific number "50"
Also, you don't always know which few maps will end up being the favorites, look at TF2, valve was hyping up the Hydro map new gameplay style before release, and it's dropped to the 4th most played map out of the 6:
http://www.steampowered.com/status/tf2/tf2_stats.php
So 2 maps may be enough to begin, but get at least a couple more out quickly :)
Interesting use of the phrase 'slightly quicker' to describe 'double the rate'. I'm sure most would-be players would like to know exactly how much of an effect the experience points have on gameplay. If XP translates to better stats, whether speed, damage, rate of fire, new weapons/items or whatever) it sounds very much like this system will leech off the same mindset that has XBox achievement whores buying shoddy, shoddy games simply to rack up another easy 1000 achievement points.
If players can pay to get their stat-boosting experience points faster and therefore have a greater chance of surviving/killing, etc., the 'free to play', 'fun' and 'friendly' aspects kinda go down the drain.
In the trailer DICE promised in no uncertain terms, that you won't "get shot in the face repeatedly by a swearing, ultra-skilled 15 year old [sic] boy who plays the game every day for 8 hours". What they haven't confirmed, is whether the gameplay deifnitely does NOT permit you to get shot in the face repeatedly by a zero-skill billy-no-mates with more money than sense, who gets double experience points every day for $8.
Works brilliantly in my experience. I'm a 'decent' (vague I know) FPS player but I still get massacred if I just drop in on most open servers for BF2 of TF2. Some level of matchmaking makes a lot of sense.
"our matchmaking system ensures you only play with people of equal skill level."
So I can't play with my brother downstairs who happens to just be a lower skill level than I am? Or with my friend who hasn't managed to put in the same amount of time that I have so has less experience?
More info on how matchmaking and experience points interrelate, please. How do these systems coexist to allow me to play with who I want and still not get owned by someone who simply has more money than I do?
By whites, for whites?
Let me guess, the concept guy who ripped off TF2 is white and the art director is white and the creative director is white and the producer is white. Ignorance is gross.
What you're talking about in terms of proportional player systems and art direction are malleable variables that are always open for revision and redesign. The structure of these features and elements should all be based on a 'future business' structure that creates a consumer's process:
1. Anticipation;
2. Interraction;
3. Loyalty; and then
Future business for the company, newer ideas and I dare say, better ideas, and around we go again.
To answer your topics directly:
50 Maps: Have you researched, referenced, conceptulised, pitched, designed, blueprinted, modelled, textured, rigged, skinned, scripted, animated, shaded, play tested, revised and finalised 15 maps before? It 'feels' like you've created 50 maps and I think that's what BC was generalising.
Skill Purchasing: Do you really care if 'Johnny85' has puchased his skills when you're having as much fun as anyone could? Think about the entire consumer market and how the business can develop a product that wraps it's arms around the majority of that consumer market and what works for both.
Matchmaking Systems: It's a great idea. A proper system has been a long time coming. Independently, I had come to the same conclusion with a research team last year to improve the gaming experience of online games (FPS in particular) as a solution for larger consumer interest. HOWEVER, servers can easily be marked 'ranking/experience/skill'-based while others can be open slather to play with friends and brothers, regardless of statistics. After all, we're talking 1s and 0s; of course we can appropriate the system.
Character Design: I highly doubt DICE are going to exclude any particular race from the final product, as it wouldn't affectively target the fullness of their market. At the same time, there's hundreds of counties, et cetera. I wouldn't suggest that the creative department has prejudice when the same company varied cultural status within Battlefield. My default character in BF2 just happens to be African American.
In the industry, we don't open a meeting for questions without receiving solutions from those who ask, even if they're stabbing in the dark, it's still an attitude of solving problems. Having said that, I'd honestly like to hear your suggested solutions for an appropriate server system and creative design that millions of dollars can be securely invested into; and a way that DICE can affectively retrive substantial profit with this product to create future business. How would you do it?
Obviously matchmaking can be made to work in the ways you described ('matchmaking on/off' SVAR), but this was at odds to the comment Cousins made about ONLY being able to play at the same skill level. I believe this is too prescriptive (probably just a slip of the tongue on his part) but I'd like to know for sure how the experience system ties in with the game.
And he shouldn't say 50 maps if he wants to be hyperbolic, he should be more general and say 'scores' or 'dozens' of maps. Claiming 50 maps is just asking to be called up on it, as anyone who hasn't played BF will just believe the figure, so it smacks of liberal 'factoid' use.
Lastly, as a business model, yes it's all fine and dandy, but from the perspective of someone who will PLAY the game, I honestly don't care if it makes good business sense, all I care about is that the game is fun, fair and doesn't compromise my entertainment in any way (e.g. by saturating the game with more ads later down the line when player numbers begin to tail off).