2555 replies to this topic

[Huntrava]

BF4 beta is opening up in a few hours. It will launch in about a month.

PGI: take notes. You'll see what a real beta-to-launch process looks like.

[Deathlike]

Mystere, on 30 September 2013 - 10:24 AM, said:

The "psychological advantage" I spoke of was half a joke and half a dig at all those who act as if having it was the end of the world. The current drone implementation can be vastly improved as detailed in the topic I linked to above. But unfortunately, there are still quite a bit of "all or nothing" types in here that just won't allow for it's existence.

The drone implementation still boggles my mind. If we had such indestructible (and unshootable) drones, why even have mechs to scout? Heck, those things keep moving but look nothing like what actually happens when you're in 3PV...

I honestly wish PGI took feedback about 3PV seriously... and I don't mean by not implementing it, but rather refining it. Too many things have been deployed and they always seem to need some improvement... but the development cycle seems to roll on its own ("completed and then moving onto the next thing") unless there are issues that are literally dictated by money (see Kintaro, and the lack of them on the field when initially debuted due to bad hitboxes). That is a bad sign.

[Heffay]

Deathlike, on 30 September 2013 - 10:49 AM, said:

The drone implementation still boggles my mind. If we had such indestructible (and unshootable) drones, why even have mechs to scout?

To target the enemy for LRMs and help the snipers identify which component to shoot.

[Alois Hammer]

soarra, on 29 September 2013 - 03:14 PM, said:

those 2 words were better than anything PGI has said in a while

Not to mention containing much more reliable information. Hell...much more information at all.

[PoLaR]

Huntrava, on 30 September 2013 - 10:48 AM, said:

BF4 beta is opening up in a few hours. It will launch in about a month.

PGI: take notes. You'll see what a real beta-to-launch process looks like.

Dude.. Battlefield is published by EA. They probably have over 500 people working on that game! PGI was like 20-30 people when they started this. I personally enjoyed the past year- there were a lot of bugs, but also lots of progress.

Project Phoenix in 16 days!! Woo!!

[Robert Twinstar]

MMORPG.com gives MWO a 5.4 out of 10. In my book they are saying it is a failure.
http://www.mmorpg.co...load/285/page/1

[NocturnalBeast]

Huntrava, on 30 September 2013 - 10:48 AM, said:

BF4 beta is opening up in a few hours. It will launch in about a month.

PGI: take notes. You'll see what a real beta-to-launch process looks like.

Apples to oranges.

Also, MWO is pretty far from pay2win, only bad players think that.

[Huntrava]

PoLaR, on 30 September 2013 - 11:07 AM, said:

Dude.. Battlefield is published by EA. They probably have over 500 people working on that game! PGI was like 20-30 people when they started this.

In other words, you're okay with an inferior game because it's being developed by a smaller studio.

To me, a good game is a good game. A bad game is a bad game. What matters is the final product.

Ed Steele, on 30 September 2013 - 11:17 AM, said:

Apples to oranges.

You're right. Battlefield will probably focus on the community/social aspect than MWO. What BF3 included with the game (Battlelog, a mere afterthought) creates better social interaction than MWOs interface which was supposed to be a central part of the game.

Here's my BF3 compared to MWO:

[Heffay]

Huntrava, on 30 September 2013 - 11:36 AM, said:

In other words, you're okay with an inferior game because it's being developed by a smaller studio.

I fully expect a studio with 1% of the resources of EA to put out a game with the same amount of features and polish...

Yup, not being unreasonable there. My expectations are firmly grounded in reality...

Ooh! I know! We should all hope that EA takes over the game!! That will make it better!

[Huntrava]

Heffay, on 30 September 2013 - 11:41 AM, said:

I fully expect a studio with 1% of the resources of EA to put out a game with the same amount of features and polish...

Yup, not being unreasonable there. My expectations are firmly grounded in reality...

PGI set the bar that high when they started pitching this game years ago. They shouldn't pitch features they aren't fully capable of delivering.

How is it unreasonable to expect them to do what they said they'd do? Were we supposed to know they were incapable of developing a polished, high quality game with lots of features?

[DeaconW]

Kaijin, on 30 September 2013 - 04:04 AM, said:

If you're missing the advantage here, I don't know how I could formulate an explanation you'd understand any better.

My first reply got deleted so I will simplify my response to this....the ignore feature is one of the few useful meta-game tools PGI has implemented and is highly useful in discussions with people who may not be capable of seeing your perspective....

On an unrelated educational note: the word for today is sycophant. Education is important! Stay in school!

[Vassago Rain]

Heffay, on 30 September 2013 - 11:41 AM, said:

[/size]

I fully expect a studio with 1% of the resources of EA to put out a game with the same amount of features and polish...

Yup, not being unreasonable there. My expectations are firmly grounded in reality...

Ooh! I know! We should all hope that EA takes over the game!! That will make it better!

But final fantasy 1 was made by 13 people as their swan song.
And guilty gear: the missing link had a team of 14, who didn't only program, but wrote the story, voiced most characters, invented moves, drew the art, figured out how to get it onto the playstation...

Fez was made by 2 people.
Dwarf fortress is made by 2 people.
System shock 2 was made by a team of 20, not counting all the outside voice actors.
Eternal darkness was made by a significantly smaller team than modern day PGI.

You shouldn't quote me on this, but I'm pretty sure crytek itself doesn't have that much a bigger headcount than PGI who are actually working on their games.

More chefs don't automatically make a better soup, and if said soup is bad, all the chefs involved have to deal with the consequences. They don't get a pass because they were few, or many. Bad soup's bad soup.

[Heffay]

Huntrava, on 30 September 2013 - 12:04 PM, said:

GI set the bar that high when they started pitching this game years ago. They shouldn't pitch features they aren't fully capable of delivering.

How is it unreasonable to expect them to do what they said they'd do? Were we supposed to know they were incapable of developing a polished, high quality game with lots of features?

Not done yet doesn't mean not done.

[ArtemisEntreriCRO]

Heffay, on 30 September 2013 - 12:09 PM, said:

Not done yet doesn't mean not done.

but id does mean it is not done in time, it wasnt done when it should have been done, and it is not done now much later than it should have been done, and it is questionable if it will ever be done
and they have gotten millions of $ from players, enought to finish an AAA game

[soarra]

ArtemisEntreriCRO, on 30 September 2013 - 12:17 PM, said:

but id does mean it is not done in time, it wasnt done when it should have been done, and it is not done now much later than it should have been done, and it is questionable if it will ever be done
and they have gotten millions of $ from players, enought to finish an AAA game

or if they even started on half the stuff they said, (most likely not)

[PoLaR]

Huntrava, on 30 September 2013 - 11:36 AM, said:

In other words, you're okay with an inferior game because it's being developed by a smaller studio.

To me, a good game is a good game. A bad game is a bad game. What matters is the final product.

No, that's not what I said. Please don't put words in my mouth. What I said was that I enjoyed this game the past year despite its many ups and downs. A "Good" and "Bad" game is your personal preference, and I'm not here to change your mind about that. I pointing out that with a smaller amount of people working on a game typically means It will take a lot longer.

As for PGI setting the bar too high.. well, everything starts with an idea. I'm glad that PGI had high goals, otherwise we not might have ANY MWO game to play. You clearly don't like the game so I don't assume you will understand that.

Edited by PoLaR, 30 September 2013 - 12:42 PM.