Mojo
Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Mojo
MemberYou actually like the NXE?!
That was what drove me from my 360 to the PS3.
Blades > NXE.
Also, Antony; Gears of War 1 is one of the best games ever made. It stands up to most PS3 exclusives IMO. Gears 2 was shite though, and three will probably be no better. With the exception of Warhawk, I've never played a better game.
You also forgot about Metro2013 which is meant to be pretty awesome
MemberBigWoopMagazine said:
@Mojo – We've kinda run this topic into the ground, but I'd like to note that not all games have this level of severity when it comes to glitches. Just the multiplayer ones. Most single player games lately have been pretty good about it – at least, the ones I buy… and the glitches they do have aren't as in your face game breakingly close. Games like Infamous, Dead Space (although theres an item duping glitch, but you have to look it up to do it), Red Faction Guerilla, Batman AA, Soul Calibur 4, Tekken 6, Little Big Planet, and God of War 3 (as far as I know). Even the games we're talking about here, MW2 and BFBC2, if you stay offline theres virtually no glitches. Same with Uncharted 2 (which while even that has had its glitches, seems to provide the most reliably good online games in the past year), and probably a few others I can't think of right now. Anyway, my point is that regardless of how well made a game is, as soon as it gets users connecting to eachother, the potential for glitches rises exponentially. I'm not saying that either game is made really well or really poorly, just that this is an inevitability for what they are trying to accomplish.
I agree that single player games aren't half as bad as multiplayer, but then, maybe that's because there's no one there to exploit the glitches and make them game breaking?
Maybe I'm biased because the last few games I've played have been lacking in polish, but I think that overall, these days, we expect thing to go wrong in a game.
When I was going for my Plat in BC1, all the way through I had my fingers crossed that it wouldn't glitch like so many others. I was lucky to get it, but I know too many people who didn't.
DICE can fix the glitch, or manually give the plat to those who got screwed, but they never did.
MemberIf you're stupid enough to get scammed by this, then you deserve to be robbed.
There's a sense of justice to the whole thing. The thieves getting done.
MemberBigWoopMagazine said:
@Mojo – okay, I like the picture. Actually its pretty funny, cause its mostly accurate. Theres definitely a few maps that don't follow that formula, and the ones that do tend to piss me off because of assloads of snipers watching the bottleneck. Nonetheless, if you're saying “its a bunch of cod maps stitched together” well,,, at least they're 5 times bigger than COD maps. The nice thing about them is that in different modes you play different areas, and really the bottlenecks are only a problem in rush mode. In conquest and deathmatch its much less linear, and I don't really notice that issue. I also enjoy that theres a consistent mix in the maps between urban and rural warfare – sure theres not buildings all the time, that'd be too easy, since you can blow them up. The fact that there are sections you have to move up through where your only cover is the camoflauge of the foliage around you can be pretty fun, but also frustrating at times. Overall they balance those elements well, and it works with the destructibility of the environments.
The few maps that don't follow the formula are the few I actually enjoy playing. Arica Harbour and Nelson bay are the only maps that feel like a battlefield map. Even Arica harbour is too narrow.
At no point in any map should I be able to throw a grenade from one side to the other.
And who in DICE thought that 3 flags would be a good idea for conquest? The low number of flags and small maps push everyone into a grind for whatever the middle flag is.
There's no vehicle warfare, no flanking, no hasty defenses and no intelligence required.
The Mario 64 glitch I was referring to is that theres a way to run THROUGH the train. Not just ride the tracks. Plus it was an example off the top of my head and not the best one. I'd come up with more but you should get the idea – games have never been glitch free, and never will be. Thanks to the internet, some of those glitches can be fixed post-release, which is a good thing for the most part – but I'm sure you're right that some developers take advantage of that. I think IW definitely rode that train, but BFBC2 looks like they really tried to eliminate as many things as they could before release – as they should have, what with the claims of competing with MW2.
Games were never fully glitch free, no. But they never had the severity of glitches you find now. When I buy a new game, I expect glitches. I expect game breakers, and I expect to have to wait for a patch.
That shouldn't be the case though. DICE also barely touched the game after the beta. They had the genius idea of boosting the damage of all weapons, which would hide most of the balance issues.
The PC “beta” was an old build fired out to pacify the crowd. They already had their release build finished/next to. What was the point of the beta, if not a marketing stunt?
As for the beta, I was not confused. I was referring to the public ones. I know, theres internal testing of course. Hiring a team of people to do testing means paying people. Lets say thats ~$35,000 per year per person. Average COD game = 16 players (I think). Do the math, thats some money right there. Lets assume they had two full teams of people doing the testing. Now do that versus having several thousand people do the testing for free. Sure, the feedback isn't as professional (but I know nerds, they love to complain when something goes wrong), but with more people doing it you are definitely going to find way more glitches to fix – and it shows by the number there were on release day comparing the two games. I reiterate, on day one of MW2, the servers didn't even work. On day two, it was glitched to high hell. On day now, it is still insanely glitched. BFBC2 on day one had less glitches than MW2 has now. If that doesn't do it for you, then heres a list of the things that were fixed during BFBC2's public beta:
http://forum.ea.com/eaforum/po…..65311.page
Sure its not everything, but damn thats a lot, and some of it is pretty significant. Public betas are free mass testing, and are effective if the company makes good use of it. I don't see why the wouldn't, and think it was a huge mistake on IW's part to have not done so.
Game Devs don't keep testers on the payroll. They test themselves, and then hire professionals from time to time.
Professionals who know what to look for, how to look for it and how to report it. I have no doubt that DICE did an internal beta long before the public. Public Betas are only for PR. Having public betas means you get a shit tone of useless complaints for every one that's slightly useful. Do you really think that DICE employees read through any of the “feedback” they get? They probably pop in from time to time with a token gesture of appreciation, but that's about it.
Hosting the servers and organising the beta would have cost an absolute fortune too, but I guess the marketing pays for itself.
On day one of BC2, I couldn't play online. On day two of BC2 I still couldn't play online. On day three I got on briefly before being kicked.
By day 7 I had reached rank 12 three times, and each time lost everything I had done.
Some of the in-game awards still don't work, and if BC1 is anything to go by, they will never work.
DICE's post release support is terrible. MW2 might suck, but at least it gets support.
:::ahhhh::: now that all of that is out there, I will say I stick to my opinion of BFBC2 being better for all the reasons originally cited. Destructible buildings, Vehicles, Maps that shift to new locations as you play, Classes that encourage team work, the squad spawning system, and the actual potential for tactical warfare to occur. I can tell a major difference when I play with friends who communicate in BFBC2, because we support each other and balance our classes. In all CoD games, it has never made a difference in how we play or perform, I just have someone to bullshit with while shooting people. I guess in the end its still all a matter of preference, and I've made mine incredibly apparent.
I also think that BC2 is better than MW2. I never claimed otherwise. I think that both games are terribly made, but I'll still play BC2 over MW2, but then, that's more out of loyalty to BC1 than the appeal of BC2.
Also@ Dizzel. Wat?…
Memberdizzel22 said:
hahahah that cut deep
that really is wonderful. Well how about this i don't care , i wasn't even the one answered you without a reason .Maybe Ratchet just put “no” because he thought that's all your comment was worth having said about it.I would like to see you give us all an example of what MW2 maps have been stitched together to make which BBC2 map , or is it just because there on land or something , maybe they should have made it under water would that differ enough from the MW2 maps ?
Oh yeah great come back too “conversation 101″ i kinda expected better ,but maybe your social skills aren't all that great ………………..see not that good of a call is it.
I must apologise for the late reply. I missed your post yesterday.
Although, am I meant to reply? You assert that you “don't care”, yet the ensuing paragraph seems to say otherwise.
But it's cool. You're clever use of clichés and snappy condescension has shown me how little my “insult” has affected you. You're clearly above all of my trolling.
With the statement “Shitty little Cod maps stitched together” I was referring to the size and play of the maps. Not their physical appearance. I'm sure EA have a fantastic legal team to back DICE up, but I don't think they would get away with copy-pasting CoD maps.
Perhaps in future when I make a point, I'll use smaller words and less ambiguity.
MemberThis thread is a definite cry for help.
W4R must not be getting enough attention at home.
Or maybe he thinks he's funny and this is a poor attempt at seeking validation.
MemberI do look at the size of the maps and the number of players.
Then I look at the size of the maps and number of players in BC1 and I nostalgia hard.
BC1 I would jump in a tank and go for a nice Sunday drive over the mountains, across the fields, through the creek and then into the enemy base from the side.
Now I get in my tank, drive down the only road the tank can fit on, drive it straight into the bottleneck, just like I do every single time I play the level.
Even the smallest map in BC1 gave you 5 ways into the enemy base, and let you play however you wanted.
Every map in BC2 is basically a straight line. You spawn, run in a straight line towards the enemy, shoot your way through the bottleneck, and then run in the front door of the base.
Memberdizzel22 said:
haha seemed obvious to me “BC2 maps are tiny little shitty Cod maps stitched together.” and his answer is No. Come on , maybe he should have wrote something like ” hey that's a fvcking stupid comment to make because there not even close ” or maybe “just how different do you want them to be considering how similar the game type is”
Just for you dizzel, as I'm sure your social skills aren't all that great:
Conversation 101:
When someone makes a point that you disagree with, you voice your opinion, and then (now this is the important bit so pay attention) you explain your reasoning.
Isn't that wonderful?
MemberWow, W4R, so I take it you were the cool kid in school then?
MemberNo what?
MemberHalf of IW has left now. Zambella and West managed to headhunt a lot of the staff.
Turns out Kotic's “fear and paranoia” plan didn't work out for him in the end.
Shame it wont' have the slightest affect on Activisions profits.
MemberNES – Tecmo Super Bowl – In a 2 player game, if a player ran the ball into his own end zone, it would score points for the other team. By starting a tournament, pressing start on controller 2, and doing this, you could easily win the tourny with no effort. BROKEN.
N64 – MarioKart64 – on the desert racer level, there is a glitch that will allow you to ride the train track and not get hit by the train – thus shortcutting every one else and winning the race easy. Not game breaking, but pretty damn cheap, and breaks that level.
PS2 – GOD OF WAR – The harpy glitch. Frickin google it. Its even still in the remake – easy trophy!
Tecmo Super Bowl sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Just like in most shooters, if you kill yourself, the other team gets points.
Exploiting this is called boosting not glitching. Learn to internet lingo.
That was a shortcut in Mario Kart. Almost every level had one. I'm genuinely baffled that you thought that was a game breaking glitch.
Next you'll tell me the cave on Koopa Beach was a glitch. Or the road revealed by the tide.
The issues you've named in BFBC2 are not game breaking. Shoot the damn UAV. You should be guarding the box anyway. Its annoying, but they're using a tactic, use tactics to stop them. As for the ticket trick – I have encountered teams using this. They suck. I still win. It just takes forever, and yes, this needs to be fixed.
Shoot the UAV? Am I meant to spend my time staring at the sky? It takes all of two seconds for it to drop out of the sky onto the crates. Even firing at it all the way, I'd still be lucky to take it out (far enough away so the C4 doesn't take the crate anyway).
And if you've encountered teams doing the medic glitch, and managed to win, they either didn't know what they were doing or you have the leet game winning majics, because just two medics can easily keep their team above 75 tickets for the entire game.
That leaves ten other players with infinite lives and all the time in the world to rocket your crates.
Something tells me you've never played against a proper clan.
The game has been out a month. They haven't even had a chance to create a patch and issue it. MW2 has been out much longer, patched multiple times, still has game breaking glitches, and still has more issues and glitches than BFBC2, which is probably a result of, get this, bad programming and rushed patches. And, for the record, BFBC2 was tested, it had this thing, we call it a beta. MW2 however did not.
They've already patched the game. A secret ninja patch about 3 weeks ago. Try going to the UAV third person view. It's now gone.
Also, I think Modern Warfare is also a pile of crap, so trying to justify BC2's fail with MW2 isn't getting you anywhere.
Every game has a beta. You're getting confused between a public beta, which is a marketing stunt, and an internal beta which is actually used to find bugs. You know, where they hire professional beta testers to find all the fail.
BFBC2 has improved on its predecessor in every way possible.
No it hasn't. BC2 maps are tiny little shitty Cod maps stitched together. The weapon balance is pathetic. Name one weapon that was “imba” in BC1.
Claiming that one game is better than another is opinion. I preferred BC1 to BC2.
I also understand how much goes into a game. Which is something I don't think you do.
With programs like Zbrush the 3D work time is cut in half. Considering half the assets in BC2 came straight from BC1, that's even less work that's needed to be done.
The physics haven't changed since BC1 either, with the exception of the few decon buildings, everything is the same.
I'm not talking through my arse when I claim to know what goes into a game, as I'm more interested in the making of them than the playing.
As it's an industry I want to get involved in it's something I've taken the time to learn the ins and outs of.
I've also been part of a modding community for a few years now, and I've studied Game Development in college too.
As it is, modern games are rushed out into the market and fixed later. PC gaming was more patch prone because there was no standard to work with. Every computer is different, so a lot of work has to go into optimising for different systems. Consoles don't have this problem at all.
MemberKnoxie, did you actually try to claim that “host migration” is a bonus MW2 has that BC2 doesn't? For serious?
@BigWhoop: Games back then were just as complicated as they are now. Technology improved so games improved.
How many game breaking glitches did you come across ten years ago?
There was one. Broken Sword, and it was notorious for it. Now most games have a game breaking flaw that needs to be patched out.
Take Laguna Presa on BC2. The crates have no siren when armed. How was that missed? If it was played even once, it would have been found.
In BC1 you had to avoid “freeze zones” in the choppers, otherwise you'd freeze up your entire console.
These were never removed, despite some of them being almost unavoidable.
As for game breakers in BC2, although not a console killer, the game is inherently flawed.
Have you not yet come across the ticket boosting?
As defender, if the attacking team know what they're doing, you can't win.
Your team loses a ticket when you suicide, you get revived it comes back. BUT, if you suicide again, you don't lose another ticket.
Now you get teams of medics suiciding and reviving each other. As a result, they end up with as many tickets as they want, and the defender can do nothing about it.
The attackers can also load a UAV up with C4 and fly it into the crates. Crate gone, nothing the defenders could have done to stop it.
There are pages of bugs and glitches reported, yet after a month, nothing has been fixed. Try putting an ACOG on a GOL. Enjoy the giant black bar that stretches across your screen. Why was that not found?
BC2, like BC1 is coded terribly, and not tested at all.
MemberLaurensMalter said:
both very good games and very well made
No. Both might be good games (debatable), but they are both terribly made.
MW2 had about 6 patches in the first month, is rife with boosting and glitching and still buggy as crap.
BC2 needs 6 patches in the first month, but DICE being true to form have already abandoned the game.
Should they release a patch, it'll only fix a few of the annoying glitches, but still leave the game breakers (if BC1 is anything to go by).
Advice for BC2 online, quit every 3-4 games. When you quit it saves your progress. If you don't quit, you'll get dropped from the server (which is inevitable) and you'll lose everything you'd achieved.
A lot of you might be too young to remember a time when a game was released, it was the finished product. It would have been in development for about 3 years, and reached the market perfect.
Now, the game gets released about 3/4 way through it's dev cycle, you then buy the game, discover everything that's wrong with it, and wait for them to patch what they can't get away with ignoring.
Or, like DICE, never patch and leave a game where anyone can intentionally crash a server causing your console to freeze.
MemberGow2's avi looks like it's from The Last Guardian.
@kog
Avatar: 4/10. You need to work on your posture.
Sig: 4/10. Needs a tl;dr
-
AuthorPosts