ultima said:
Zkuq said:
More like devolve, not evolve. When most games in a genre are very much the same, I don't see how moving towards that direction is evolving (especially considering how simple CoD, the direction they're taking, is).
I agree, Bad Companies were great (well, I pretty much missed the first one). They were also totally different from the first games in the series due to consoles. BF3 tried to bring the old things back, too, but apparently it failed at that. BF4 seems to be trying to fix that, but it's still trying to appeal to the CoD audience at the same time. As for the things you said made the BF series great, the first one didn't even exist in the beginning so it couldn't make it great (and besides, destruction is a fun feature but very rarely is it something that 'makes a game great'). The rest, except for vehicles, are so ambiguous, that they could be said even about CoD (and probably every other popular multiplayer shooter).
And finally: do you have experience of the first games in the series, before Bad Companies?
|
Well okay, you're right about COD. I meant to say evolved along with the majority's taste.
The games I played before BC are Vietnam and 1943. I don't think Vietnam had destruction, but the other three were definitely present.
Destruction plays a major role in Battlefield. It really does have a significant effect on matches. Map design I'd say was always well above average with these games. By beautiful multiplayer I meant actual team and squad based multiplayer, not mindless COD type run-and-gun.
|
Fair enough, you've explained your opinion well. Now that I review the whole discussion, I'm getting the impression that we haven't even been debating about the point I originally tried to make because of my bad choice of words ('over-the-top' when I was referring to gameplay instead of story). I guess it doesn't hurt, though.
