I know alot of this stuff has been discussed before, But i wanted to get this all down in one place. If you have the attention span of a 5yr old, see the TL;DR at the end of this post.
First off, "Soo who am I to be Talking about Game design and such"
Well, I started playing FPS when i was only 9 (I believe my very first was Soldier Of fortune). within a few years i had moved into the "competitive" side Playing my games seriously, Running with clans, Specializing in certain skills, etc. By the time I was 15 I had started doing map-Making and modding; Which i continue to this day... Tho i am now much more advanced at it using scripts, arrays, etc. I have a good understanding of What makes FPS game modes work, and how they target specific audiences.
Now, In the Market we have 2 Real Categories, Tho some games take elements from both- On the arcade end we have games like COD: Modern warfare, Counter strike, etc. These games focus on Fast-Paced Action. Smaller numbers of players in a relatively confined area with powerful weapons. This results in a High amount of intensity in MP Game play.
Game mechanics are fairly simplistic here, and focus more on the individual. This kind of game appeal to a larger audience who "Just want to get to the good part". (think of an action movie- some people like a great story line in it, other just want to see sh** blow up the entire time and don't care about the story at all)
On the other end we have Games like ArmA and Op Flash, The Serious, ultra realistic, tactical Simulation style games. They often are complex and feature rich. They focus on larger scale maneuvers with a larger number of players, but actual combat action is sporadic. Game play focuses instead on Smart use of resources, Tactical planning, and good coordination to execute a successful attack or defense. This type of game appeals to a smaller "niche" audience, where the community takes the game extremely seriously and often play as tho it were real life.
The Problem is.. there's a lot of people who like elements of both sides. And that's where games Like Battlefield 2 come in. (im using BF2 here as i personally feel its the best representation of the features and capabilities of the series) BF2 Takes a Larger number of players then most arcade shooters and gives them a fairly big map. This allows for more consistent action then a arma style game, But still gives ample room for strategic play. The smart (or no so smart) use of vehicles and assets can make all the difference. The game has a lot of nice features that encourage Squad and Team level cooperation, But also is designed in such a way that you are not FORCED to play a certain way. Features like squad leaders and team commander help to promote an organized game play environment.
Okay so now you all know where im coming from-
My main concern is this; One of the best things about BF IMHO is that it perfectly balances Realistic strategic play, with Arcade Action and somewhat balanced weapons/kits. I personally feel that the move BF has been taking ever since BFBC1 in "simplifying" the experiences is messing with that careful balance. They are slowly moving it more and more towards simplistic arcade shooter; and IMHO that is not was Battlefield is about. Now some may say that giving things like the artillery gun (a la BFBC1) to anyone who gets on it first, or the UAV (BFBC2) includes more people.. That may be true, But think about this.. How is that beneficial to the TEAM? The ability to elect a competent commander who can use the resources best to Benefit an over-all team effort is vital in my opinion. It brings to the table a whole tactical layer of game play. Having to re-supply your troops, Provide reconnaissance, etc.
We now see people going around shooting at over-head dots, Assaults infinitely re-supplying thier own n00b tube, Medics with the ability to mow down an entire squad, And gun fights & vehicle engagements often depend on who has what Perks/Specs enabled then actual skills. Features Like "motion sensors" and Kill cams are counter productive to strategic play (one guy in a flanking squad kills someone and he can tell everyone what they're doing and where they are!)
AS PROMISED TL;dr
In conclusion my opinion is that the Exclusion of features like designated Squad leaders, Team commanders, And more (and more specialized) Kits
in combination with the ADDITION of arcade features like 3d spotting and Kill cams, and Perks are all working to undermine Tactical and team oriented play.
To be honest, CoD and BF aren't that different in terms of how arcadey and realistic they are.
ReplyDeleteIn some aspects, CoD is more 'realistic' than Battlefield. Especially if you look at older BF games (2142 and earlier) and compare them to any CoD game. On average, BF games require more hits to kill and sniper rifles only kill on headshots in BF games.
Obviously damage is not the only factor in what makes a game realistic. But if you were to make CoD an objective conquest game and BF into a DM based game, CoD would be a lot more realistic in terms of authenticity and gameplay. You do have to remember though, that BF is more authentic because of the way it plays, but that authenticity does always not equate to realism. When it comes to direct gameplay mechanics, it's much more arcade than other games.
Your scale should be something more like this:
ArmA/America's Army/OFP/whatever-----------------------------BF/CoD--CS----------------Quake/UT/whatever
BF and CoD are a middle ground between arcade and realistic. But they are both more arcadey than realistic. BF may feel more authentic and realistic because of the style of play, but the core mechanics of the game, being an arcade-style shooter, are not that much more different than CoD.
Also, when you say "simplistic arcade shooter". I dare you to play high level Quake and say that it is simple. In many aspects, it requires a lot more skill and strategy than many other FPS games.
I probably won't reply to this, but your post was a nice one. Just lacking in some aspects about your view on how arcadey BF really is in comparison to other games.