Repairing the Battlefield

Ok, before I jump straight into this, I feel compelled to write more about BF3 (see the acronyms starting to crawl into my work? Lazy, I know) due to the incredible feedback my last blog about it received.  Honestly, it was really great and before I get into this, I wanted to thank all the people who left me feedback and read it all through.  You may not know, but this blog stuff is new to me too.

I also feel the need to say this before I begin; I like Battlefield.  I don’t wish to come across as ‘a hater’ or someone who is merely airing their rants through a blog.  I just think that Battlefield – specifically Battlefield 3 and its successors – could learn a thing or two from the problems in the latest release. 

The point in this blog I wish to tackle is, ‘is this game catering for the casual gamers, a little too much?’  In my opinion – and it is only my opinion – is yes it does.  I am a casual gamer (playing around 10-20 hours a week) and even I am finding it a little frustrating at how many ‘mini systems’ are in place to help players out.  By ‘mini systems’ I mean ways in which the game holds the hands of players in telling them things which, I believe should be figured out on their own.  For instance, the mini-map, displayed in the bottom left hand corner of the screen, in-game, can disclose a little too much information. 

Audio spotting is when an enemy shoots his weapon (it’s a gun game!) and is highlighted as a triangle on your map.  Whilst I don’t think it’s particularly fair that an enemy should not only be able to see my position when I fire my weapon, but to see which direction I am also looking in, it gives my enemy a huge advantage.  Don’t forget that this is meant to be a game involving a large amount of team work (which is great!) which can mean players move in unison, as a team.  This gives the player who has been audio spotted a few potential problems; 1. He is visible to all the enemies around him; 2. It is likely there will be more than one enemy moving to his position and 3. It also means that due to the amount of bullets it takes to kill in this game (again, not a complaint), that it is highly unlikely that the audio spotted player will survive.  I do appreciate however, that using the silencer attachment gets rid of this problem (after the patch fixed that bug anyway) by removing the audio spotting at the expense of a larger degree of bullet drop and more bullets required to kill an enemy (albeit 1 or 2 bullets difference).  But I can’t help but feel it is still overpowered.  This game mechanic didn’t exist in any of the previous titles, why this one? 

3d spotting is also a mechanic which is arguably somewhat overpowered.  3d spotting is when an enemy is identified by your team mates and a button is pressed which then highlights that enemy on both your mini map and the actual game screen.  Whilst I am of the opinion that is actually a good mechanic to encourage team work, giving the player who ‘spots’ points when that enemy is killed, the feature is often abused.  What is to stop a player from repeatedly pressing the spot button?  To spot an enemy, you don’t even have to aim down the scope, you can look around in a good vantage point and press the spot button and a swarm of enemies can light up like a party of dancing Doritos.  Maybe if the mechanic was only assigned to the appropriately named Recon class, whose job is to scout areas from afar, using tools such as the MAV and TUGS, then maybe it would make their job a little more pronounced on the battlefield.  As I pointed out with audio spotting, 3d spotting also shows your team mates which way your enemy is looking.  In my opinion, even if the mechanic were to show you where the enemy was, without knowing which way he was facing (represented with a circle perhaps?) then it would be improved.  It would certainly make the VOIP (If it worked) more important. 

Also in the game, maybe a first for any game, come to think of it, is vehicle regeneration.  I don’t know about you, but I don’t think it seems very fair for vehicles to magically repair themselves if they are ‘out of action’ for 15 seconds.  Again, this is a feature that wasn’t in other titles, why this one?  Even transformers don’t have this luxury!  They have to repair themselves if they get injured (fully aware they’re not real!).  Engineers exist in the game; why not make them even more useful by forcing them to do their jobs of repairing damaged vehicles?  It might also make people better at driving vehicles if they are forced to look after them. 

Another game mechanic which irks me somewhat is downed allies being represented on the mini map as symbols.  Again, I understand why they are there, but it reveals too much information.  Firstly, it reveals that one of your teams mates is down and where on the map.  Secondly, you know that if you have a downed ally, an enemy is nearby.  This gives you the opportunity to be careful if you wouldn’t have been otherwise, the proverbial ‘heads-up’ as it were.  I think this could be more balanced if they removed the symbol from the mini map and only showed a symbol on the screen if the downed ally is directly in your field of view.  Another way of tackling the issue could be to tell medics through the games own audio, that there is an ally down, encouraging them to look for a body and reviving him. 

Enemy equipment showing up on your mini map.  Claymore mines, anti tank mines and enemy recon equipment show up on my mini map, why?  Surely this makes most equipment a little useless, unless someone who isn’t very good at map reading plays the game?  I hope this is a bug, but if it isn’t, it has to go...

Wall clipping is a bug, but it is also a big problem.  Being able to go prone in the game is fine, hell, if someone was shooting at me, I’d hit the deck... But DICE need to fix wall clipping.  Wall clipping is when your avatar goes through solid objects such as walls or map scenery.  What it means is that if you go prone and ‘clip’ into a solid object, up to 50% of you – or your enemy – is invincible.  Not too good in a competitive shooting game.  I think Call of Duty got this right, because if there is a wall blocking you, you cannot go prone and are prompted with a ‘prone blocked’ message.  Simple, yet effective and it stops from giving you an unfair advantage. 

BUT!  There is good news, a few leaked patch notes seem to making the right noises (Commo Rose update for PC!!).  I doubt that those noises include any fixes of the above problems – that might be too little too late, but weapon balancing issues and attachment balancing is an important first step in repairing the games post-release frailties.  As I have previously stated in my last BF3 blog, found here;

http://stateofgamestoday.blogspot.com/2012/02/full-and-very-comprehensive-critique-of.html

This is a very decent game.  I feel as though I need to keep reiterating this point because I do enjoy it or at least, I want to enjoy it.  My gripes with the game could be fixed with time, let’s hope they put that time into this game. 

I think the biggest thing DICE can do is come out and say they know things aren’t 100% right.  However, this doesn’t seem to be the case.  Saying ‘We nailed it’ doesn’t fill the active community with much confidence because they know that is not the case.  DICE releasing patches tells everyone that they haven’t ‘nailed it’.  Patches are effectively fixing broken parts of the game.   

So what can we expect in the future with DICE? Will there still be broken voice communications?  Will there still be input lag on the PS3?  Will there still be lock on, fire and forget weapons?  Wall clipping?   3d and audio spotting?  Will their telemetry – which they appear to put so much faith in – suggest to them that they include more maps like Operation Metro?  Whilst there seems to be never ending servers filled to the brim with 24/7 Op-Metro games being played, is that due to players who are new to the game needing to play it to catch up with the higher levelled players who have unlocked the better weapons and equipment?  Will they provide even more ‘mini systems’ to help players that are new to the franchise? 

I hope not, I even have the hope that they get rid of a few in the next game, once the newer players feel at home.  I cannot imagine they will be gotten rid of in this game, although they could, if they wanted to.  Before I was introduced to the franchise, I, like many others, played games such as Call of Duty, Quake and Counter Strike.  What drew me to this game was the fact it was that bit more ‘grown up’.  It required more thinking.  You couldn’t run around with any weapon, killing everything in your path, at any range.  I remember the sheer terror at coming across tanks in BF2, finding myself out of reach from my squad mates, I had to lay low, wait for it to pass and hope it never saw me.  It felt like a scene in Saving Private Ryan!  Now, all you have to do is 3d spot it and wait for a jet, helicopter, a support with c4 or an engineer with a RPG to help you out.  I feel as though the moments of suspense in this game are few and far between. 

Maybe the next Battlefield will be released on the next generation of consoles (the ‘next, next gen?!’).  How powerful will these consoles be?  Will they be able to handle 64 players without having to push the machines to the extreme?  If they can handle 64 players, will the latest PCs be able to handle 128 or even 256 players?  Where will it end?  As I have said in my previous blog, ideally they need to keep treating consoles and PCs as separate entities.  But there is a lot more money to be made releasing games on consoles, so I cannot see separate games being released any more.  It would mean creating two separate games, with twice as many programmers/work!  Not really a viable business strategy. 

Seems like I’ve been wittering on again doesn’t it?  How about I end this now, let the game grow and mature and see where we are in another 6 months..  No game is released without bugs today, that’s the nature of the beast with the sheer amount of differing hardware/software available to people these days.  I suppose only time will tell us if DICE leave this title as it is, essentially changing their values to cater for the more arcade friendly gamers.  I just hope that I am made to look stupid in the next few months.  I sincerely hope people can read this back when BF4 is released and sneer at my short-sightedness.

If you’ve made it this far, I hope you have a great day,

If you enjoyed my ramblings, please follow.  Also feel free to leave any feedback; it’s all very much appreciated.

Mr. C

A full and very comprehensive critique of Battlefield 3

EA and DICE’s’ jewel in the crown.  This was their AAA hit, released in October 2011.  It was released for all the major next generation platforms (PC, PS3, 360) and has sold fairly well (11 million).  Its trailers created a big buzz in the gaming world; demonstrating large open maps, gun play which looked exciting and varied, vehicular combat including jets, helicopters, tanks, jeeps and the most awesome looking knifing action in any game to date. 

The Battlefield community was extremely optimistic about the game, which is – or is meant to be - the true sequel to the PCs very own Battlefield 2, released in 2005.  Console gamers were excited to hear they would also be able to lay their hands on BF3 which would be the first BF title since BF Bad Company 2 was released in 2010.  DICE made a lot of promises to the community, some of which they didn’t and still haven’t deliver(ed). 

The game was brought forward in time to compete with the upcoming Activision title; Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, which was guaranteed to be a monster hit like many of the other CoDs before it.  This is the first thing I think EA (more so than the helpless DICE) called wrong.  There was a limited Beta released on Console and a slightly more fulfilling one for PC (It gave them a 64 player conquest map to play with), but none of which gave DICE enough time to iron out all of the bugs/glitches in any version.  The community knew this,  and called out for DICE to loosen the leash a little more and give the community slightly more time/options to run the game through its paces.  DICE didn’t listen – whether this is because of time constraints or because they flat out refused is something only they will ever know. 

The game is finally released to the masses and sells well.  Reviews are high, but not as high as they would be for the CoD which was being released a couple of weeks later.  With the release, within hours the first problems were being reported.  360, PS3 and PC users were complaining of the game crashing their systems.  Console users were complaining of the screen intermittently flashing blue when certain actions occurred.  This was a problem which DICE ‘fixed’ whilst the game was in Beta.  The PC users were complaining that even though their game supports 64 players (compared to the 24 of the consoles), that their maps were exactly the same size, thus making them small, tight, clogged up messes.  There were still various bugs within the game; including dying for absolutely no reasons and it being labelled a ‘bad luck’ death.  Certain guns were overpowered compared to others, making most of the guns completely redundant.  Attachments were overpowered, such as the Infra Red Night Vision scope, which could see across the entire map, highlighting enemies like a firework in the pitch black sky.  The community gave this feedback to DICE’s forums and were met with, ‘We’re patching the game soon’.  This is all well and good, but when the patch came, all 2.5gb of it, it really made you wonder what they were actually patching..

The Bad Luck deaths were still occurring, the destruction had been toned down since the Beta (still is on the initial maps!), certain attachments were not only required, but essential to be on par with everyone else playing (Fore grip, silencer anyone?) and some guns were made unplayable (G3).  Worse still was the VOIP (Voice Over IP) on all platforms still didn’t fully work (still doesn’t!) meaning you can’t really work as part of a team – something which DICE are adamant is the key to playing the game.  PC users were/are still moaning about the map sizes often citing that BF3 ‘isn’t a true BF2 sequel – It’s Bad Company 2.5’ and they’re right.  Modding tools will not be released for this game "for the foreseeable future"(??), which is a travesty in itself as many of the best BF2 maps were community or user created and are still being used.

I think we have to ask why they (the modding tools) are not being given to the community.  I can understand their decision not to at the moment (money stupid!) – but to never give them out will really damage DICE’s reputation as being the good guys of the developing world – if – that is; they haven’t damaged their reputation enough since BF3’s release.  The odd thing is, is that they built that reputation by listening and actively communicating with the BF community.  They have listened and acted before, why not now?.. Oh hang on.. That’s right, EA own them now, silly me.

Giving the community these tools so soon after release would mean that EA wouldn’t earn any money from DLC (Downloadable Content).  But I hear you say ‘They’ve already given us the "Back to Karkand" content for free!’ to which I reply ‘Yes, you’re right, but if rumour is anything to believe, those maps should have been released with the rest of the game in October..’  Again, we will never know the truth, but the Karkand content, which are re-mastered maps from BF2 do play very well.  They are the first set of DLC for BF3, with gamers who pre-ordered the limited edition copy getting it for free.  Those less fortunate, unfortunately have to pay for the 5 maps included within it.

Some of DICE’s’ staff have also left the company now, to work on other projects.  It will be interesting to find out whether their successors are willing to take into account the communities pleas.  It has to be said however, that some of these pleas’ do make you think they are just whingeing about not being very good, but that’s the potential difference a great community manager could make. 

New patches are being worked on – albeit very slowly so far – but at least DICE haven’t given up on the game – yet.  You see, the thing is, at the core of this game, it is a very good game.  It could still be DICE's' best game, if they listen.  What DICE need to do, is treat consoles and PC’s as separate entities.  PC’s are much, much more powerful than the consoles, which are now 6/7 years old.  It is not fair to give them the same product when the PC is capable of so much more.  Yes, there are slight changes in the map sizes, flag counts etc, but even these aren’t enough.  There are more than a few willing, intelligent people in the BF community that can give excellent advice.  A few things such as; 6 man squads, larger maps, more player control, more options, the ability to mod the game (when it is appropriate), getting rid of client side hit detection and more (another blog perhaps?).

For consoles and other miscellaneous problems; dedicate a team to get rid of lag input (PS3 only), get rid of client side hit detection, let players go into empty servers to practice flying helicopters/jets, fix the VOIP, balance the guns, balance the attachments, let squads go into games together, even if it's an empty server - it will fill up, fix match making, fix people switching teams during the middle of the game, let us quit the game between rounds, increase destruction (enable ground deformation) and make it the best game this game could be.

As I have previously said, there are a lot of customers out there who want to like the game, but can’t.  It’s close to being great, but DICE’s’ laziness and unwillingness to fix the core problems are holding this title back from being great. 

Console users can understand having only 24 players and smaller maps, well some of us can.. But give PC gamers what they deserve, they’ve waited 7 years now for a ‘true’ BF2 sequel, they deserve it. 

If you’ve got this far, thank you and I hope you have a great day,

Thanks for reading, any comments or feedback is appreciated,

Mr.C