To see DICE’s latest blog post, click here.
It’s interesting to read just how much criticism Battlefield 3 is taking, specially on the PC side of things. On one side, players say the game is excellent… on another, players say they want something more like Battlefield 2. I’m going to take this time to get up on my soapbox and say what I think:
Battlefield 2 was good in 2005 when it was released. In fact, it was incredible. However – times change and products evolve to stay fresh and exciting. If DICE kept putting out the exact same product from 2005, people would start to lose interest eventually. But how do you make everyone happy in this situation? The answer is you can’t make everyone happy. Enter Call of Duty: Modern Warfare. COD instilled in gamer’s minds that gameplay should be a quick, one man army style with plentiful rewards… Halo kind of did the same thing. Gamers developing more of a “I want this now” kind of mentality. Then there’s Battlefield (not Bad Company) off on it’s lonesome. Larger maps and longer games compared to COD.
Where am I going with this?
Games need to evolve to stay entertaining and be competitive in the market, however Battlefield shouldn’t be directly compared to the likes of Call of Duty or Halo… unfortunately that is the direction it’s falling into. Some of the changes to the Battlefield 3 were good, while others were just bad decisions altogether. I’m mostly talking about the features and design. The game chat took a step backwards. No VoIP. Awful minimap, etc.
It will be interesting to see what happens to the community and negative forum topics once MW3 drops…