|
There's a certain degree to which
you wonder how limiting these choices are, even if they appeal to what
is perceived as a broad audience.
BC: Yeah, I think there's a danger
of marketing, or creating games for a niche within a niche, within a
niche, and that doesn't get you anywhere. You need to think a little
bit bigger than that. And I'm not saying that we're abandoning the gritty
realism -- gritty realism's really cool -- but there are different kinds
of ways of approaching that; fresh ways. And, you know, Mirror's
Edge is pretty realistic, but it's got a completely fresh art style,
for example.
But, you know, Battlefield Heroes,
when you're in that game, and the sky's blue, and everyone's got a smile
on their face, and they're waving to each other whilst they gun each
other down -- it's a really cool, almost kind of a subversive-feeling
experience.
That's what I
want to ask about, actually. One thing that has come in the Worlds in
Motion Summit, is that you can block and censor, but you can't stop
people from acting like dicks online. They'll find new ways.
What's the communication mode? Is it just emotes?
BC: We have text as well, but you can
turn that off. But it's mostly just emotes, yeah. And that's the most
readily available thing -- and I think I understand where you're going
with this, in that our emotes are kind of fun, and they're happy. So
you just create a fun and happy feeling.
I always loved the way that -- there
was something about Phantasy Star Online, which created this
positive kind of atmosphere. Probably because they had that kind of
text-free system of talking to each other.
And as soon as you've got,
like, people... You know, a kind-of Quake III "DOMINATING"
kind of [feel], the guys with the pitched-down voices and that kind
of macho crap.
Well the trailer was hilarious,
because it started with a serious World War
II-type feel, and the thing is, the dialogue was terrible.
BC: I wrote that dialogue. I'm proud
of how terrible it is.
Yeah, but that's the thing! I've
seen trailers with worse dialogue that wasn't ironic.
BC: Exactly. We're poking fun at this
conservatism within, particularly, computer developers. And there's
nothing about shooting a gun with a mouse control and WASD that means
you have to take yourself really seriously.
I don't want to belittle
the fact that people gave up their lives for their country in the past,
but at the same time, do we really want to be making entertainment about
this?
That's something I've wondered about.
There was that period where developers made
Vietnam games, because everyone was bored with
World War II, and that period didn't last very
long, because I think that Vietnam was a bit more contemporary, and
a bit more fucked up, so people couldn't justify it.
BC: Yeah, absolutely. It's been nice
for us, not to be bogged down by any particular historical setting;
we're influenced by World War I and World War II, but we're not really
there. The armies are fictional, the vehicles are fictional, and
it's been nice just to be able to say, "Hey, let's just do that."
Rather than, "Is this right? Is this sensitive? Or is this insensitive?"
To what extent did the design of
the game come out of the idea of wanting to do a microtransaction free-to-play
game, and to what extent did the game design, like, "We want to
do happy, more colorful, more accessible game," and then you found
the right niche for it?
BC: No, I think it came from the business
model -- and that's interesting, because people assume business models
aren't creative, but you can get a lot of creativity by the restrictions
of the business models give you.
Once you start thinking free-to-play,
and advertising revenue, you have to have a broader audience; to get
a broader audience, you need lower system specs, that leads you to think
about cartoony graphics. And before you know it, you've actually made
a lot of creative decisions which kind of seeded themselves from that
business decision.
You make creative decisions based
on the limitations that are imposed on you.
BC: Yeah, absolutely. And there are
limitations imposed on the boxed products as well, right? Let's not
forget that. So, people are used to the limitations of boxed products,
it's just that we've got a different set of limitations for free-to-play
products.
And is this leading the charge of
the free-to-play movement within EA?
BC: This was driven by DICE very much,
strategically, and we're happy to be leading the way -- we love to lead
the way, we love to take chances, and suffer the struggles of being
the first guys out there. And if anyone else in EA wants to get involved,
and learn from us, we'll absolutely happy for them to do it.
But I don't get the feeling that there's
a concerted, specific, strategic movement within EA to do that. The
new EA, which I work for now, since Riccitiello took over, wasn't really
thinking these global, huge, monolithic ways; it's more about the creativity
of individual teams.
|
Printer-Friendly Version
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).