Well, looky here! An update not at 3:00 in the morning! What a sight to see!
Ahem. The rest of the weapons and items really received very little in the way of boosting or nerfing. The M1A1 Thompson received a damage boost and in the last update the MP-443 Grach and M1911 pistols received a little tweaking. The MP-443 received a damage boost, since it was already the weakest of the pistols but with the highest fire rate and clip size, thus making it a much more desirable weapon. The M1911 had its rate of fire significantly reduced, which was good, considering it was almost a machine pistol with really big bullets to begin with. It is still a very powerful weapon, but it isn't as widely used as it was. You see the MP-443 and the M9, even the M-93, which also received a damage boost. The M1 Garand is finally usable, since DICE fixed its inability to receive stars, and you see it a lot more in the game nowadays. Prior to the update, I'd seen it used once, and I don't really know why, since the guy using it really cleaned house.
Probably the largest change for the general kits came to the shotguns. Their slugs lost accuracy, which was good considering they killed at any distance with pinpoint accuracy, and overall shotguns no longer require magnum ammo to be effective, though some people still run with it out of habit or superstition. A better option is the increased ammo capacity or explosive damage increase for the assault shotgun players (C4 works wonders if you know how to use it).
Two small things I forgot to mention in the actual class reviews.
First, the recon mortar strike had its recharge time increased to 60 seconds, which is actually quite a bit with a game that moves fast (they do, sometimes). It also makes tactical use of the strike much more valuable, considering it's great cover fire on Rush and works wonders against a stationary vehicle of any kind.
Second, the engineer's repair tool overheats faster but repairs faster, so overall the effect is the same, but pulsing the tool is now more attractive than constant repair. Killing with it is, of course, now easier, and still just as rewarding.
I think that's all of it. If I missed something, I'm sure I'll think of it after the post.
Overall though, this update gets an 8.5. I'm not averaging the scores too much, just seeing where the high-middle might be. The updates to the game do make it more playable and enjoyable on a more consistent basis. Rage always happens. That' the topic of tomorrow's post.
Thanks for reading,
Xiant
Showing posts with label DICE. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DICE. Show all posts
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Friday, July 16, 2010
Penultimate Reivew: The Engineer
Tonight's entry will be short, this time not because I'm tired, but because there's really not much to talk about.
The engineer's main weapons, the SMG's didn't really get too much tweaking in either of the updates. Without the data from the first update handy, I can only talk about the current one. The UZI had its ranged damage increased and the PP-2000 had its up close damage decreased. The UZI, not having used it, didn't really need this little increase, and the PP2000, if anything, needed a very slight boost. As it is, the weapon is really not much use, even with its high rounds per minute. You're really better off with the AK74u or the XM8 compact.
The real topic of debate, continued debate, is the Carl Gustav rocket launcher. Even though DICE reduced it's lethal radius to 1.8 meters rather than 3, it's still a primary weapon for many engineers. Some say even more so than it was before the "nerf." I tend to agree. I see more and more engineers using the CG at the expense of other weapons for purposes other than vehicle destruction. Paired with the tracer dart, which saw a slight reduction in travel speed, most vehicles have no hope of survival, especially against a determined few engineers and their CG's. However, with explosive damage increase and more explosives carried, a total of 8, CG only engineers have the ability to spam their weapons until they get the kills. With the lower skill level required for CG kills in this case, those looking for high K/Ds with minimal effort need only look as far as the Carl Gustav.
Granted, I don't really know what DICE can do to decrease the CG effectiveness any more beyond reducing the radius still more. Reducing its damage is out of the question, seeing as it then becomes useless, and without the two main nerfable areas, there isn't a good alternative.
Regardless, DICE did nothing to address the issue at all, so this part of the update gets a 7.75.
Thanks for reading,
Xiant
The engineer's main weapons, the SMG's didn't really get too much tweaking in either of the updates. Without the data from the first update handy, I can only talk about the current one. The UZI had its ranged damage increased and the PP-2000 had its up close damage decreased. The UZI, not having used it, didn't really need this little increase, and the PP2000, if anything, needed a very slight boost. As it is, the weapon is really not much use, even with its high rounds per minute. You're really better off with the AK74u or the XM8 compact.
The real topic of debate, continued debate, is the Carl Gustav rocket launcher. Even though DICE reduced it's lethal radius to 1.8 meters rather than 3, it's still a primary weapon for many engineers. Some say even more so than it was before the "nerf." I tend to agree. I see more and more engineers using the CG at the expense of other weapons for purposes other than vehicle destruction. Paired with the tracer dart, which saw a slight reduction in travel speed, most vehicles have no hope of survival, especially against a determined few engineers and their CG's. However, with explosive damage increase and more explosives carried, a total of 8, CG only engineers have the ability to spam their weapons until they get the kills. With the lower skill level required for CG kills in this case, those looking for high K/Ds with minimal effort need only look as far as the Carl Gustav.
Granted, I don't really know what DICE can do to decrease the CG effectiveness any more beyond reducing the radius still more. Reducing its damage is out of the question, seeing as it then becomes useless, and without the two main nerfable areas, there isn't a good alternative.
Regardless, DICE did nothing to address the issue at all, so this part of the update gets a 7.75.
Thanks for reading,
Xiant
Thursday, July 15, 2010
The Medic Kit: Review
There's two reasons I"m reviewing only the medic tonight. One, I'm tired (again), but also because it begs a bit of explanation.
When the medic kit first hit, the gun everyone used was the M60. The gun was accurate from across the map and had the most damage of any light machine gun (and still does). The only real drawback was the giant recoil, which didn't really matter at anything other than long range. Add to this that LMG's were generally accurate at any movement speed save sprint meant that medics with M60s ran and gunned, carrying whole teams to victory on the virtue of their overpowered mancannon. It became a polarizing issue in the BC2 community, the first of many. It's damage, fire rate, ammo carried, lack of accuracy falloff and other lesser factors created a class play style that wasn't intended. Instead of staying at the mid-lines keeping everyone alive and reviving, medics took the assault's job away from them to some extent. Another gun like the M60 but not nearly as vocalized was the XM8 LMG, whose increased fire rate and rounds per minute coupled with its own sizable damage output made it a worthy second to the M60's crown.
DICE took their time in balancing the weapon in the major update, wanting to be sure that it no longer carried the stigma of launch. When the patch finally came out, the LMG's saw perhaps the biggest nerf, since rather than a single weapon seeing a reduction in its attributes, the entire LMG category felt the blow of the balancing hammer. LMG's no longer carried near the accuracy when moving, and no crouching gave the best results. The hit was so great that running and gunning medics all but disappeared and medics, if they wanted to go back to their old ways, were forced to choose from the all kit weapons with much more limited ammo supplies. The M60 and the XM8 also saw great reduction in their damage output over range. While the M60 now carries a 16.7 damage at max range, that, combined with its great recoil, does lower its ubiquity somewhat.
With the recent update, the status quo changed the most for the medic kit as well. The intro LMG, the PKM, saw an increase in its damage at range, the T88, which previously received a nice pad to its damage output, found itself reduced back to standard fare. Not surprisingly, perhaps, the MG3, the final LMG rewarded to medics, with the highest rate of fire and lowest damage, received a boost to both damage up close and at range. Originally, I believe, 10 damage up close was the maximum, but now that figure is 12.5 and damage at max range is 10. With rounds per minute at 1000 and .06 seconds between each bullet, it takes approximately 4.8 seconds to kill up close and at max range, assuming every bullet hits (my math might be wrong).The weapon has, therefore, seen a rise in users. The SPECACT kits released do something for that as well.
Overall, the medic updates are good, but the M60 is still a little over powered. Proficient users still snipe from long range, but its core users, the run and gunners, moved on, thankfully.
The updates get a 8.75.
Thanks for reading,
Xiant
When the medic kit first hit, the gun everyone used was the M60. The gun was accurate from across the map and had the most damage of any light machine gun (and still does). The only real drawback was the giant recoil, which didn't really matter at anything other than long range. Add to this that LMG's were generally accurate at any movement speed save sprint meant that medics with M60s ran and gunned, carrying whole teams to victory on the virtue of their overpowered mancannon. It became a polarizing issue in the BC2 community, the first of many. It's damage, fire rate, ammo carried, lack of accuracy falloff and other lesser factors created a class play style that wasn't intended. Instead of staying at the mid-lines keeping everyone alive and reviving, medics took the assault's job away from them to some extent. Another gun like the M60 but not nearly as vocalized was the XM8 LMG, whose increased fire rate and rounds per minute coupled with its own sizable damage output made it a worthy second to the M60's crown.
DICE took their time in balancing the weapon in the major update, wanting to be sure that it no longer carried the stigma of launch. When the patch finally came out, the LMG's saw perhaps the biggest nerf, since rather than a single weapon seeing a reduction in its attributes, the entire LMG category felt the blow of the balancing hammer. LMG's no longer carried near the accuracy when moving, and no crouching gave the best results. The hit was so great that running and gunning medics all but disappeared and medics, if they wanted to go back to their old ways, were forced to choose from the all kit weapons with much more limited ammo supplies. The M60 and the XM8 also saw great reduction in their damage output over range. While the M60 now carries a 16.7 damage at max range, that, combined with its great recoil, does lower its ubiquity somewhat.
With the recent update, the status quo changed the most for the medic kit as well. The intro LMG, the PKM, saw an increase in its damage at range, the T88, which previously received a nice pad to its damage output, found itself reduced back to standard fare. Not surprisingly, perhaps, the MG3, the final LMG rewarded to medics, with the highest rate of fire and lowest damage, received a boost to both damage up close and at range. Originally, I believe, 10 damage up close was the maximum, but now that figure is 12.5 and damage at max range is 10. With rounds per minute at 1000 and .06 seconds between each bullet, it takes approximately 4.8 seconds to kill up close and at max range, assuming every bullet hits (my math might be wrong).The weapon has, therefore, seen a rise in users. The SPECACT kits released do something for that as well.
Overall, the medic updates are good, but the M60 is still a little over powered. Proficient users still snipe from long range, but its core users, the run and gunners, moved on, thankfully.
The updates get a 8.75.
Thanks for reading,
Xiant
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Bad Company 2 Update Review: Assault and Recon
Strangely, despite DICE's claim that they tweaked a lot of weapons in the latest update, I can't say I see all that much in the way of improvement. The weapons I can speak to I'll talk about, but there isn't much in the way of stats for the update, at least comparatively. Therefore, I'll talk about the two update together in places where it's pertinent.
First, the Assault Kit. This kit didn't get much of anything. The two main changes came for the 40mm shotgun and the AN-94. I'll touch on the shotgun first, since I've never used it. Apparently, DICE raised the base damage from 14.3 to 16.7 with a multiplier of x12 based on distance. This, combined with the 2.5 damage bonus for headshots, greatly increases its range. I may start using it, but since I rarely play assault anymore, that may take a while.
As for the AN-94, I can't speak to it before the second major update, but that one made it the new M60, and everyone who's anyone uses it, unless they find it distasteful. It's base damage at close range is 20, making it a five shot kill. While it's rate of fire isn't stellar, it is fast enough at .1 seconds that the kill is only about half a second long. Most players don't react that fast to much of anything, and if you've got them in your sights from most distances before they see you, they're dead. This is still true since the update. The only major change is the damage drop off at distance. DICE lowered this to 14.3, which makes the weapon the equal of the M16A4 at any distance and most other weapons at mid to long range. The only real drawback to the weapon is the fire rate. If you want more kills, it's the weapon to use.
The Recon kit recieved a slight buff and a hefty nerf in the first update. The M95, a bolt action, .50 caliber sniper rifle, reduced its longest range damage to be in line with every other bolt action, which many people found distasteful. There was no longer a reason to use it over any of the other rifles, considering the accuracy is actually less than the GOL or the M24. Interestingly as well, the headshot multiplier for the M95 is only 2.3 while the other bolt actions are close to 4. This not only makes the M95 a poor choice up close, it is less effective at range as well. All this, added to the paltry increase to 55 damage at max range (from the base 50) in the recent update, and the rifle is useless as a bolt action. I prefer the GOL.
These parts of the update I give an 8.
That's all for today. Tomorrow is the medic and engineer kits. The day after covers the rest of the weapons.
Thanks for reading,
Xiant.
First, the Assault Kit. This kit didn't get much of anything. The two main changes came for the 40mm shotgun and the AN-94. I'll touch on the shotgun first, since I've never used it. Apparently, DICE raised the base damage from 14.3 to 16.7 with a multiplier of x12 based on distance. This, combined with the 2.5 damage bonus for headshots, greatly increases its range. I may start using it, but since I rarely play assault anymore, that may take a while.
As for the AN-94, I can't speak to it before the second major update, but that one made it the new M60, and everyone who's anyone uses it, unless they find it distasteful. It's base damage at close range is 20, making it a five shot kill. While it's rate of fire isn't stellar, it is fast enough at .1 seconds that the kill is only about half a second long. Most players don't react that fast to much of anything, and if you've got them in your sights from most distances before they see you, they're dead. This is still true since the update. The only major change is the damage drop off at distance. DICE lowered this to 14.3, which makes the weapon the equal of the M16A4 at any distance and most other weapons at mid to long range. The only real drawback to the weapon is the fire rate. If you want more kills, it's the weapon to use.
The Recon kit recieved a slight buff and a hefty nerf in the first update. The M95, a bolt action, .50 caliber sniper rifle, reduced its longest range damage to be in line with every other bolt action, which many people found distasteful. There was no longer a reason to use it over any of the other rifles, considering the accuracy is actually less than the GOL or the M24. Interestingly as well, the headshot multiplier for the M95 is only 2.3 while the other bolt actions are close to 4. This not only makes the M95 a poor choice up close, it is less effective at range as well. All this, added to the paltry increase to 55 damage at max range (from the base 50) in the recent update, and the rifle is useless as a bolt action. I prefer the GOL.
These parts of the update I give an 8.
That's all for today. Tomorrow is the medic and engineer kits. The day after covers the rest of the weapons.
Thanks for reading,
Xiant.
Monday, July 12, 2010
The BC2 Patch: Knifing and Review Begin
Sorry about the missed update yesterday. The family went to a party I didn't know we were going to and that messed up the rhythm of the day. I'm back, though it's my father's birthday tomorrow, so we'll see what I can cook up.
Tonight's topic is, as promised, the beginning of a review of the Bad Company 2 update. I'll speak to knifing in this blog. In future entries, I'll touch on further problems that arose in the second major update, as well as any statistics changes I can find.
But knifing's back. Everyone cheer! When BC2 first launched, after the obligatory problems with any big launch, knifing was a whole new experience. I believe that in Call of Duty, especially the newer ones, the knifing is a little overdone. I know that the Commando perk in Modern Warfare 2 is a bit much (and that's putting it mildly). Therefore, when I first knifed someone in BC2 I was surprised, but not negatively or positively so. The animation was exceedingly slow and the hit registration needed work. That is the negative. The positive is the satisfaction actually knifing someone gave you. You had to really work to get the knife, and on the big maps for any game mode save Deathmatch, going knife only, as is possible in Call of Duty with a fair bit of skill, became a task of almost monumental difficulty. Granted, it is possible, and people do it. Some of them even go positive doing it. They are, however, an even greater minority than in the Call of Duty franchise. I know of only two or three in BC2 while I'm sure there is at least ten times that number, if not more, in CoD.
Then the patched the game in April. Knifing went to hell. Strangely, knifing from behind did not work. You had to be within 180 degrees of your enemy's front if you wanted to get the knife kill. On the other hand, the longer knife animation was not always necessary for the knife kill. A simple swipe got the job done. Hit detection in this regard was much improved, and it was still satisfying to out think your opponents in fights when you've both run out of ammo (which is easy to do between players of equal skill or fail level). Overall, though, knifing fazed out of fashion if only because it was now even inefficient than using guns.
In the recent update, which came out on June 29th, my birthday, they fixed knifing. Anywhere near the opponent and suddenly he's dead. Right on! Unfortunately, the awful hit registration returned as well, and there is, once again, a little bit of a lunge when you knife someone, sometimes. Other times, you just fail. In all my time before knifing returned, I didn't get a single melee efficiency pin, a hard pin to get. I can now claim at least six to my name in the twelve or so hours I've played since the 29th.
This part of the update I give a 9.
Tonight's topic is, as promised, the beginning of a review of the Bad Company 2 update. I'll speak to knifing in this blog. In future entries, I'll touch on further problems that arose in the second major update, as well as any statistics changes I can find.
But knifing's back. Everyone cheer! When BC2 first launched, after the obligatory problems with any big launch, knifing was a whole new experience. I believe that in Call of Duty, especially the newer ones, the knifing is a little overdone. I know that the Commando perk in Modern Warfare 2 is a bit much (and that's putting it mildly). Therefore, when I first knifed someone in BC2 I was surprised, but not negatively or positively so. The animation was exceedingly slow and the hit registration needed work. That is the negative. The positive is the satisfaction actually knifing someone gave you. You had to really work to get the knife, and on the big maps for any game mode save Deathmatch, going knife only, as is possible in Call of Duty with a fair bit of skill, became a task of almost monumental difficulty. Granted, it is possible, and people do it. Some of them even go positive doing it. They are, however, an even greater minority than in the Call of Duty franchise. I know of only two or three in BC2 while I'm sure there is at least ten times that number, if not more, in CoD.
Then the patched the game in April. Knifing went to hell. Strangely, knifing from behind did not work. You had to be within 180 degrees of your enemy's front if you wanted to get the knife kill. On the other hand, the longer knife animation was not always necessary for the knife kill. A simple swipe got the job done. Hit detection in this regard was much improved, and it was still satisfying to out think your opponents in fights when you've both run out of ammo (which is easy to do between players of equal skill or fail level). Overall, though, knifing fazed out of fashion if only because it was now even inefficient than using guns.
In the recent update, which came out on June 29th, my birthday, they fixed knifing. Anywhere near the opponent and suddenly he's dead. Right on! Unfortunately, the awful hit registration returned as well, and there is, once again, a little bit of a lunge when you knife someone, sometimes. Other times, you just fail. In all my time before knifing returned, I didn't get a single melee efficiency pin, a hard pin to get. I can now claim at least six to my name in the twelve or so hours I've played since the 29th.
This part of the update I give a 9.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Patches, Time and Vegas
Tomorrow I leave for Las Vegas to celebrate mine and my parents' birthdays. Posting will thusly be a little bit shorter, and since I need to get to work packing and sleeping, this will also be a rather short blog.
The Battlefield forums have a real history of trolls and flamers (look it up) always looking for something to complain about. DICE wisely remained out of the war on their own forums, knowing that if they chimed in, the flames would only grow hotter and the trolls tougher. With the recent patch to BC2, long awaited, they addressed many issues the community had, while instituting a whole slew of new ones. There are those who are just happy the patch came out, myself among them, and I hope that the issues stay in minority of players and are addressed quickly.
Of course, however, there are those who are still complaining, some even more vehemently than last time. The question becomes: what do you want from them? Either they get as much done as they can and release, testing again and again for any bugs they can find, or they release small patches with less testing which may cause even more issues than a sweeping patch. DICE has no way to win here, and I pity them. To a point. I do think that if they release a large number of small patches over a short period of time would, in the long run, be a better policy. Feedback would be quick and the testing crew is several dozen times larger than DICE could ever hope to field. Valve follows this model, to a degree, addressing two to four issues at a time and occasionally putting out a sweeping patch that changes the game dramatically. What I've come to realize is that big patches carry with them far more danger than small patches. This is obvious. With the huge difference in computer power from person to person, as well as different operating systems, graphical software and so much else, going big or going home brings more problems than it's worth. Every major update to Team Fortress 2 brought with it so many problems, glitches and exploits that in a thousand years the Quality Assurance people at Valve had any hope of finding.
That being said, there will always be people who want to not see the forest for the trees, as they say, and they'll complain about something. I suppose that's just a fact of life.
C'est la vie,
Xiant.
The Battlefield forums have a real history of trolls and flamers (look it up) always looking for something to complain about. DICE wisely remained out of the war on their own forums, knowing that if they chimed in, the flames would only grow hotter and the trolls tougher. With the recent patch to BC2, long awaited, they addressed many issues the community had, while instituting a whole slew of new ones. There are those who are just happy the patch came out, myself among them, and I hope that the issues stay in minority of players and are addressed quickly.
Of course, however, there are those who are still complaining, some even more vehemently than last time. The question becomes: what do you want from them? Either they get as much done as they can and release, testing again and again for any bugs they can find, or they release small patches with less testing which may cause even more issues than a sweeping patch. DICE has no way to win here, and I pity them. To a point. I do think that if they release a large number of small patches over a short period of time would, in the long run, be a better policy. Feedback would be quick and the testing crew is several dozen times larger than DICE could ever hope to field. Valve follows this model, to a degree, addressing two to four issues at a time and occasionally putting out a sweeping patch that changes the game dramatically. What I've come to realize is that big patches carry with them far more danger than small patches. This is obvious. With the huge difference in computer power from person to person, as well as different operating systems, graphical software and so much else, going big or going home brings more problems than it's worth. Every major update to Team Fortress 2 brought with it so many problems, glitches and exploits that in a thousand years the Quality Assurance people at Valve had any hope of finding.
That being said, there will always be people who want to not see the forest for the trees, as they say, and they'll complain about something. I suppose that's just a fact of life.
C'est la vie,
Xiant.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
What's to Come for Medal of Honor
So I've gone over the major parts of the game and how they seem to me in a reviewer's sense. This being a beta, however, I can't give it a full review without talking about what I hope to see in the actual release. The end review will come after the PC patch, so I can give one review pre and post patch. We'll have to see what game I go for tomorrow, or what news comes up.
In this beta, we have two maps, less than ten types of guns and three class setups. There are crashes and glitches and map errors. All of this will change with the final release. But how, and how much? Here are my thoughts.
First, I'd like to see a couple more class setups. Something in an even bigger support role would be nice. Medal of Honor already distanced itself from its two biggest competitors, let's keep that going. Give something like a medic class or an engineer class, but take a great deal of combat capability from them. Give them a pistol and a low powered rifle, but make them absolutely necessary to a good team. Medics don't revive people. That's too Battlefield. Maybe have them set up shop somewhere and make the shop destructible. Reduce the bullet damage and maybe add an injury system, so that the medic doesn't go through a canned animation for any and all injuries. The engineer should be able to either destroy or repair the environments and/or alter it in ways regular troops cannot. The Frostbite engine already has destruction built in, so use it at least a little more. Maybe adding more alternate routes could be the engineers main job, and maps with impassable chasms cater to them making them a real necessity to the team. At a score chain for them maybe let them build a small bridge or destroy an otherwise indestructible passage way. At their next one, maybe let them increase the minimap for a small time, so that the full battlefield becomes visible with enemy emplacements and everything.
While I'm on that topic, add more to the scorechain, but keep it simple. Make it class based rather than universal. So the rifleman gets what's in the beta, and then each other class gets something of their own, even one or two things different.
DICE promised endless customization. So did MW2, but in the end the best set-ups always boiled down to a very small selection. Don't give an advantage to one set-up over another. Keep it balanced, which DICE is more than capable of.
Give us prone. The single player has it. Give it to the multi. That needs to happen.
More than a few maps. Give us a lot. This has been a long war, and Afghanistan is a big place. Maybe show us a fight over an oil field (controversial, eh?) in the true desert. Show us some cave fighting with very little outdoors. Underground even. If there are fully class based maps, make sniping even harder. Give us windage and bullet drop and true travel time. Make the distances feel right. Make us work for the shots.
If you implement an injury system, have it act like a real injury. Legs injuries should slow you down or immobilize, head injuries blur vision, arm injuries decrease reload times or end it all together, add idle sway to all guns like a sniper scope.
Add a weapon pickup system not unlike Battlefield's, but keep it away from the complete transfer. Just the weapon you're holding with the one on the ground.
All in all, be as realistic as the game will allow. Don't overdo it, and show us the best game you've ever made.
Do it DICE, we know you can.
Thanks for reading,
Xiant
In this beta, we have two maps, less than ten types of guns and three class setups. There are crashes and glitches and map errors. All of this will change with the final release. But how, and how much? Here are my thoughts.
First, I'd like to see a couple more class setups. Something in an even bigger support role would be nice. Medal of Honor already distanced itself from its two biggest competitors, let's keep that going. Give something like a medic class or an engineer class, but take a great deal of combat capability from them. Give them a pistol and a low powered rifle, but make them absolutely necessary to a good team. Medics don't revive people. That's too Battlefield. Maybe have them set up shop somewhere and make the shop destructible. Reduce the bullet damage and maybe add an injury system, so that the medic doesn't go through a canned animation for any and all injuries. The engineer should be able to either destroy or repair the environments and/or alter it in ways regular troops cannot. The Frostbite engine already has destruction built in, so use it at least a little more. Maybe adding more alternate routes could be the engineers main job, and maps with impassable chasms cater to them making them a real necessity to the team. At a score chain for them maybe let them build a small bridge or destroy an otherwise indestructible passage way. At their next one, maybe let them increase the minimap for a small time, so that the full battlefield becomes visible with enemy emplacements and everything.
While I'm on that topic, add more to the scorechain, but keep it simple. Make it class based rather than universal. So the rifleman gets what's in the beta, and then each other class gets something of their own, even one or two things different.
DICE promised endless customization. So did MW2, but in the end the best set-ups always boiled down to a very small selection. Don't give an advantage to one set-up over another. Keep it balanced, which DICE is more than capable of.
Give us prone. The single player has it. Give it to the multi. That needs to happen.
More than a few maps. Give us a lot. This has been a long war, and Afghanistan is a big place. Maybe show us a fight over an oil field (controversial, eh?) in the true desert. Show us some cave fighting with very little outdoors. Underground even. If there are fully class based maps, make sniping even harder. Give us windage and bullet drop and true travel time. Make the distances feel right. Make us work for the shots.
If you implement an injury system, have it act like a real injury. Legs injuries should slow you down or immobilize, head injuries blur vision, arm injuries decrease reload times or end it all together, add idle sway to all guns like a sniper scope.
Add a weapon pickup system not unlike Battlefield's, but keep it away from the complete transfer. Just the weapon you're holding with the one on the ground.
All in all, be as realistic as the game will allow. Don't overdo it, and show us the best game you've ever made.
Do it DICE, we know you can.
Thanks for reading,
Xiant
Medal of Honor Gameplay and Problems
Jumping right in here.
I've made mention of the fast paced nature of the game, and that is the only way I know to describe it. From what I've seen, and seen is all I have, of MW2, Medal of Honor is only slightly slower in the deathmatch mode and significantly slower in the objective gametypes. This is, of course, relative, since spawn times are, at their longest, only about 5 seconds long, and then only for the defenders. Attackers reenter in about 2 seconds tops. Modern Warfare 2 and its nigh-instant respawn times in all but CTF or no respawn in Search and Destroy, is faster. Dying is also faster, even more so than Medal of Honor, and with the number of different ways to die (air support mostly) and patently noobish ways to acquire said kills, not only do games last significantly shorter spans of time, but there is quite a bit more rage involved.
The deathmatch games last about ten minutes, which is comparable to anything in MW2, and for good reason. Respawn times are so similar and the map is much smaller. That is not to say the map is actually small, as it is moderate to large compared to MW2 maps. However, even with a twelve on twelve game, sometimes actually finding another player to kill takes time, especially if spawns recently shifted, instant respawn doesn't do as much to speed up play.
On the deathmatch mode, the score counting kills as well as support actions and revenge/savior/headshot kills, not to mention assists more than makes up for the lulls in battle, as well as lowering the time for gameplay. And speaking of time, DICE continues their idea from BC2 by not putting a time limit on either of their game modes. For Combat Mission, there is a built in limit on how long a match could concievably last, since the attackers have only so many troops to send in before they fail. In a 1v12 situation, with a full spawn trap, the match's limit is only around 200 seconds, or three and a half minutes. However, with the various people playing, and the different ways they play (cautious or aggressive or in between), the matches tend to go into the fifteen minute mark, though they don't really last more than 20 minutes at the maximum. The longest I've seen is a little more than 18 minutes.
That all being said, the comparison of MoH to MW2 and BC2 is impossible to ignore. If you follow anyone on YouTube with the beta in hand, and there are many, the opinions are out there, and they are, surprisingly, wide and varied. Some think the game is more of a Battlefield mod or outright copy, essentially DICE repackaging BC2 with a few changes to gameplay and new maps. Others see it as a mishmash of the two, hedging its bets between the warring franchises. Still others see it as the silent observer, who realized what worked and what didn't, and took its own spin while adding something of its own. The last one works for me. It is neither a copy of MW2 with a DICE touch, nor is it a BC2 mod with different maps. It isn't even a mix of the two, and here's why. First, there doesn't appear to be an air support problem. When I say problem, I mean that during play you don't hear ENEMY AC130 IN THE AIR! at all times, and there aren't constant assaults by harriers and helicopters and missiles aren't falling from the sky every five seconds, or at least, not guided ones. A human guided missile is a late scorechain reward, and you can't call a harrier strike to sit over the map and do the work for you. Secondly, the game takes only the actual engine from BC2, the Frostbite, but utilizes it in a very different way. The destruction is exceedingly limited, since C4 can't even destroy mud houses and it obliterates concrete in BC2. Add to this that the only vehicle acts only as a support unit, not as the primary attacker/defender. If this were a BC2 mod, even the deathmatch mode would have something like a tank or emplacement or something. If it were a clone of MW2, players wouldn't have to work quite as hard for their air support, and they wouldn't have a choice to be team players with defensive scorechains either, especially not when there's a viable mortar strike just waiting at 40 points. The weapons travel in similar paths and in similar ways to MW2, since bullet drop isn't a factor, but they do less damage all around, though more than BC2.
This idea leads nicely into the problems section. First, two things about weapons. Maybe reduce the damage a little bit, just a couple bullets more for each kill, and then make there be a little time between shooting and hitting. Less than BC2 but more than there is currently. I think also there needs to be a kill cam. Giving the weapon that killed you is certainly a nice piece of information, but also knowing from where the bullets came helps occasionally, so that players must move to remain deadly. It reduces camping, if only a little bit.
The lag, of course, needs fixing, as do the freezes on console and the random crashes on PC. I mentioned hacking already, and the server browser needs work, but I know a lot of this last stuff came, and is coming, in the patch.
All this being said, I am glad that DICE put MoH through a beta, because if all this stuff were in the final product, I can only imagine the flame and hatred the game would draw (and I look at MW2 here). Plus, DICE is even patching a Beta so that testing can happen. That makes me happy. Fixing a beta usually happens after it ends, and some companies don't do squat until they don't have to worry about actual gameplay occuring. Granted, these bugs in the beta are next to game breaking, and many are straying away for that reason.
If anything, I wish the beta were extended longer than just a month. This is a fun game.
Thanks for reading,
Xiant
I've made mention of the fast paced nature of the game, and that is the only way I know to describe it. From what I've seen, and seen is all I have, of MW2, Medal of Honor is only slightly slower in the deathmatch mode and significantly slower in the objective gametypes. This is, of course, relative, since spawn times are, at their longest, only about 5 seconds long, and then only for the defenders. Attackers reenter in about 2 seconds tops. Modern Warfare 2 and its nigh-instant respawn times in all but CTF or no respawn in Search and Destroy, is faster. Dying is also faster, even more so than Medal of Honor, and with the number of different ways to die (air support mostly) and patently noobish ways to acquire said kills, not only do games last significantly shorter spans of time, but there is quite a bit more rage involved.
The deathmatch games last about ten minutes, which is comparable to anything in MW2, and for good reason. Respawn times are so similar and the map is much smaller. That is not to say the map is actually small, as it is moderate to large compared to MW2 maps. However, even with a twelve on twelve game, sometimes actually finding another player to kill takes time, especially if spawns recently shifted, instant respawn doesn't do as much to speed up play.
On the deathmatch mode, the score counting kills as well as support actions and revenge/savior/headshot kills, not to mention assists more than makes up for the lulls in battle, as well as lowering the time for gameplay. And speaking of time, DICE continues their idea from BC2 by not putting a time limit on either of their game modes. For Combat Mission, there is a built in limit on how long a match could concievably last, since the attackers have only so many troops to send in before they fail. In a 1v12 situation, with a full spawn trap, the match's limit is only around 200 seconds, or three and a half minutes. However, with the various people playing, and the different ways they play (cautious or aggressive or in between), the matches tend to go into the fifteen minute mark, though they don't really last more than 20 minutes at the maximum. The longest I've seen is a little more than 18 minutes.
That all being said, the comparison of MoH to MW2 and BC2 is impossible to ignore. If you follow anyone on YouTube with the beta in hand, and there are many, the opinions are out there, and they are, surprisingly, wide and varied. Some think the game is more of a Battlefield mod or outright copy, essentially DICE repackaging BC2 with a few changes to gameplay and new maps. Others see it as a mishmash of the two, hedging its bets between the warring franchises. Still others see it as the silent observer, who realized what worked and what didn't, and took its own spin while adding something of its own. The last one works for me. It is neither a copy of MW2 with a DICE touch, nor is it a BC2 mod with different maps. It isn't even a mix of the two, and here's why. First, there doesn't appear to be an air support problem. When I say problem, I mean that during play you don't hear ENEMY AC130 IN THE AIR! at all times, and there aren't constant assaults by harriers and helicopters and missiles aren't falling from the sky every five seconds, or at least, not guided ones. A human guided missile is a late scorechain reward, and you can't call a harrier strike to sit over the map and do the work for you. Secondly, the game takes only the actual engine from BC2, the Frostbite, but utilizes it in a very different way. The destruction is exceedingly limited, since C4 can't even destroy mud houses and it obliterates concrete in BC2. Add to this that the only vehicle acts only as a support unit, not as the primary attacker/defender. If this were a BC2 mod, even the deathmatch mode would have something like a tank or emplacement or something. If it were a clone of MW2, players wouldn't have to work quite as hard for their air support, and they wouldn't have a choice to be team players with defensive scorechains either, especially not when there's a viable mortar strike just waiting at 40 points. The weapons travel in similar paths and in similar ways to MW2, since bullet drop isn't a factor, but they do less damage all around, though more than BC2.
This idea leads nicely into the problems section. First, two things about weapons. Maybe reduce the damage a little bit, just a couple bullets more for each kill, and then make there be a little time between shooting and hitting. Less than BC2 but more than there is currently. I think also there needs to be a kill cam. Giving the weapon that killed you is certainly a nice piece of information, but also knowing from where the bullets came helps occasionally, so that players must move to remain deadly. It reduces camping, if only a little bit.
The lag, of course, needs fixing, as do the freezes on console and the random crashes on PC. I mentioned hacking already, and the server browser needs work, but I know a lot of this last stuff came, and is coming, in the patch.
All this being said, I am glad that DICE put MoH through a beta, because if all this stuff were in the final product, I can only imagine the flame and hatred the game would draw (and I look at MW2 here). Plus, DICE is even patching a Beta so that testing can happen. That makes me happy. Fixing a beta usually happens after it ends, and some companies don't do squat until they don't have to worry about actual gameplay occuring. Granted, these bugs in the beta are next to game breaking, and many are straying away for that reason.
If anything, I wish the beta were extended longer than just a month. This is a fun game.
Thanks for reading,
Xiant
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Medal of Honor Map and Weapon Design
No intro today. Just content.
The maps in the Medal of Honor beta don't need, at first glance, much improvement from their current state. For what they are, they could very easily be final game maps (as well they might). There are a couple things I can say about them, since if there weren't, I wouldn't have much of a topic tonight would I?
Beginning with the Helmand Valley map, I think overall this map doesn't need a whole lot of actual physical changes. Of those it does need, the first is easier access for the one and only tank the map provides (barring the rare two tank game). The bridge has two boxes that impede tank movement completely which cannot be destroyed by Bradley bullets of any kind (something outside of any reality). While there is an alternate route for tanks, the way you have to drive the tank doesn't allow for a lot of quick, calculated movements and it's awkward to say the least.
As for infantry, the map doesn't really favor either side too much. While the attackers certainly have an uphill climb on their hands and limited troops, the decreased respawn time and multiple routes behind the defenders lets them put up an offensive that, if coordinated correctly, is impossible to stop. I'll talk about the respawn tomorrow with gameplay, but now I'll say that it needs tweaking. Also, while I'm on the topic of alternate routes, I have to say that the map is, if anything, too big, with far too much open space. First, with so much damage from weapons and so little health per soldier, pot shots take down enemies in no time. Second, if the shooter has any accuracy, even the best shooter won't last too long unless he spawns right in the action on someone who managed to make it to the front without dying. The map size also comes into play with the number of players per side. Even at twelve at maximum, a coordinated assault by three or four attackers from one of the many flanking positions compromises the defenders just long enough for the plant and the push forward. This, combined with the close together spawn points of the defenders and the tendency of spawn killing among many players leads to a very one sided game regardless of respawn times. Again, this depends almost solely on coordination or the skill of a few players, but it's not fun for the defenders in most cases.
The other map in the beta Kabul City Ruins, is all infantry, and its design reflects this. Close spaces and long corridors with specific sniping positions, easily accessible by anyone and rotating spawns, all combined with short respawn times keeps everything fast and hard. A couple parts of the map need fleshing out or removal, like the stairs to nowhere or the blocked off sniper house stairs, though this probably won't be an issue in the final product. Players quickly deduce the major lines of troop movement on the map and capitalize on them, but with the chaos of battle, and this map really rewards that, keeps things interesting. Adding to the strategy in the map design is the verticality. With different levels of play, whoever has the high ground has the advantage and teams who use it almost always win. That being said, with the multiple ways to said high ground and very short respawn times, barring a spawn trap, advantage shifts.
There are some negatives about this map, though. The above mentioned quirks aside, what breaks and what doesn't isn't always clear and the predicability of where the main conflict happens is something that might monotonize the game. While I don't think that destructable environments are really necessary here, since the map is far too small for that, something needs to happen to free up more of the map for play. For example, there is an entire middle hallway, quite large, in fact, that gets very little playtime, simple because it is so open. If parts of it received cover, even a little bit, it might take some of the load of the other three areas of major combat.
As with all things, the combat in the game relies on the weapons, and from where I see it, there are only six weapons in the game, with grenades being equipment. The rifle, the spec ops, the battle rifle, the pistol, the rocket launcher the bolt action. Stat wise the two factions are identical barring attachments, so I'll talk along these general lines. The rifle (M16, AK-47) is perhaps a little overpowered. Low recoil, especially if burst fired, and equal damage at all ranges makes it a universal death machine. Damage falloff, at least a little more than there is now, would be nice for it. Don't take it so far as the spec ops (M4, AK-74u), but more is better. As for the spec ops, these are probably the best balanced, though still a little over the top. The damage falloff isn't what it should be for a carbine, even at the longest ranges. Still, at all but across map, it's basically a rifle with a different name. The battle rifle (SVD and M21), with either scope, takes a little more skill to use, but because of the instant-shot-from-gun-to-hit and one hit kill headshots, accurate shooters with quick trigger fingers make quick work of almost anyone at long ranges and even quicker close up. The recoil on these is much more, almost too much, leading to wild shots sometimes. Still, it balances the weapon more for its power. The pistols (M9 and Tariq) are pocket rifles with much smaller magazines. The damage is a bit less, but not by much, and three to four shots kills. With across map accuracy, pistol play, while not quite so easy as rifle or spec ops play, is still possible. Rocket launchers, which I put the rifle grenade into, are a little weak, but with straight line shots and instant kill hits or close-by hits make them really powerful in the hands on someone who knows how to use them. The slow reload time and lack of ammunition, however, severely, and properly balance them, so they are perhaps the best balanced weapon currently. The bolt actions are great for either game mode, thought he play style differs tremendously between them. The accuracy and power balanced by the need to hold your soldiers breath makes running and running a little hard, but they are still not to be trifled with. At the longest ranges, a center mass body shot probably should be a one hit kill or close to it, but that's just me and my knowledge of sniper rounds at almost any range, especially bolt action. The only thing I have to say about grenades is that their blast radius needs a little boost and that you need to be able to throw them farther. Not as far as Call of Duty, but father than you can right now.
Thanks for reading,
Xiant
The maps in the Medal of Honor beta don't need, at first glance, much improvement from their current state. For what they are, they could very easily be final game maps (as well they might). There are a couple things I can say about them, since if there weren't, I wouldn't have much of a topic tonight would I?
Beginning with the Helmand Valley map, I think overall this map doesn't need a whole lot of actual physical changes. Of those it does need, the first is easier access for the one and only tank the map provides (barring the rare two tank game). The bridge has two boxes that impede tank movement completely which cannot be destroyed by Bradley bullets of any kind (something outside of any reality). While there is an alternate route for tanks, the way you have to drive the tank doesn't allow for a lot of quick, calculated movements and it's awkward to say the least.
As for infantry, the map doesn't really favor either side too much. While the attackers certainly have an uphill climb on their hands and limited troops, the decreased respawn time and multiple routes behind the defenders lets them put up an offensive that, if coordinated correctly, is impossible to stop. I'll talk about the respawn tomorrow with gameplay, but now I'll say that it needs tweaking. Also, while I'm on the topic of alternate routes, I have to say that the map is, if anything, too big, with far too much open space. First, with so much damage from weapons and so little health per soldier, pot shots take down enemies in no time. Second, if the shooter has any accuracy, even the best shooter won't last too long unless he spawns right in the action on someone who managed to make it to the front without dying. The map size also comes into play with the number of players per side. Even at twelve at maximum, a coordinated assault by three or four attackers from one of the many flanking positions compromises the defenders just long enough for the plant and the push forward. This, combined with the close together spawn points of the defenders and the tendency of spawn killing among many players leads to a very one sided game regardless of respawn times. Again, this depends almost solely on coordination or the skill of a few players, but it's not fun for the defenders in most cases.
The other map in the beta Kabul City Ruins, is all infantry, and its design reflects this. Close spaces and long corridors with specific sniping positions, easily accessible by anyone and rotating spawns, all combined with short respawn times keeps everything fast and hard. A couple parts of the map need fleshing out or removal, like the stairs to nowhere or the blocked off sniper house stairs, though this probably won't be an issue in the final product. Players quickly deduce the major lines of troop movement on the map and capitalize on them, but with the chaos of battle, and this map really rewards that, keeps things interesting. Adding to the strategy in the map design is the verticality. With different levels of play, whoever has the high ground has the advantage and teams who use it almost always win. That being said, with the multiple ways to said high ground and very short respawn times, barring a spawn trap, advantage shifts.
There are some negatives about this map, though. The above mentioned quirks aside, what breaks and what doesn't isn't always clear and the predicability of where the main conflict happens is something that might monotonize the game. While I don't think that destructable environments are really necessary here, since the map is far too small for that, something needs to happen to free up more of the map for play. For example, there is an entire middle hallway, quite large, in fact, that gets very little playtime, simple because it is so open. If parts of it received cover, even a little bit, it might take some of the load of the other three areas of major combat.
As with all things, the combat in the game relies on the weapons, and from where I see it, there are only six weapons in the game, with grenades being equipment. The rifle, the spec ops, the battle rifle, the pistol, the rocket launcher the bolt action. Stat wise the two factions are identical barring attachments, so I'll talk along these general lines. The rifle (M16, AK-47) is perhaps a little overpowered. Low recoil, especially if burst fired, and equal damage at all ranges makes it a universal death machine. Damage falloff, at least a little more than there is now, would be nice for it. Don't take it so far as the spec ops (M4, AK-74u), but more is better. As for the spec ops, these are probably the best balanced, though still a little over the top. The damage falloff isn't what it should be for a carbine, even at the longest ranges. Still, at all but across map, it's basically a rifle with a different name. The battle rifle (SVD and M21), with either scope, takes a little more skill to use, but because of the instant-shot-from-gun-to-hit and one hit kill headshots, accurate shooters with quick trigger fingers make quick work of almost anyone at long ranges and even quicker close up. The recoil on these is much more, almost too much, leading to wild shots sometimes. Still, it balances the weapon more for its power. The pistols (M9 and Tariq) are pocket rifles with much smaller magazines. The damage is a bit less, but not by much, and three to four shots kills. With across map accuracy, pistol play, while not quite so easy as rifle or spec ops play, is still possible. Rocket launchers, which I put the rifle grenade into, are a little weak, but with straight line shots and instant kill hits or close-by hits make them really powerful in the hands on someone who knows how to use them. The slow reload time and lack of ammunition, however, severely, and properly balance them, so they are perhaps the best balanced weapon currently. The bolt actions are great for either game mode, thought he play style differs tremendously between them. The accuracy and power balanced by the need to hold your soldiers breath makes running and running a little hard, but they are still not to be trifled with. At the longest ranges, a center mass body shot probably should be a one hit kill or close to it, but that's just me and my knowledge of sniper rounds at almost any range, especially bolt action. The only thing I have to say about grenades is that their blast radius needs a little boost and that you need to be able to throw them farther. Not as far as Call of Duty, but father than you can right now.
Thanks for reading,
Xiant
Friday, June 25, 2010
MoH Beta Review, Part 1: Graphic and Sound Design
I wanted to make this blog about game news, reviews and critical interpretations (for #3, see the Portal blog), but no actual reviews have gone up. Tonight I rectify that in the first of what I think will be a three part series reviewing the Medal of Honor Beta. Tonight is the graphics and sound design, tomorrow is the weapon and map design, with day three covering actual gameplay and whatever bugs need ironing out. The fourth day, while not actually a review, will go over what I hope to see in the actual release in early October. So let's jump in, shall we?
Graphically speaking, this game is amazing. The computer I play on, and the one I write this blog on, has a much older graphics card, an NVidia 8600 GT. It stinks, I know. Regardless, even though I put almost everything on Low settings, the game looks wonderful. Granted, there's popup and the occasional see through then not see through walls, but overall it works. I think it's also a testament to the game that the low settings have the ability to blow my mind.
Specifically, I think the use of the small color pallet is really well done. Since Afghanistan is mostly a haze of greys, browns and other desert colors, that DICE managed to craft a game not only visually stimulating but that gives the ability to see enemies at almost any distance give credence to the subtle touches in the environments that separate them from the drab "there's more brown over there" graphics of other games. In the Kabul City Ruins map in particular, there is a huge range of colors concentrated in a very small area: namely, a silly looking TV. Breaking it is so very satisfying and almost always guarantees me a better game. The Helmand Valley map, on the other hand, is almost completely a set of five different brown shades scattered and mixed to create a desert environment. Even the tanks and trees and water is brown, if you can believe it. Again, it speaks to the skill with which DICE crafted the game that not only is the map entirely pleasing to look at, but it too allows you to see enemies from a great distance, if only as silhouettes.
The character design too is well done. Each class is immediately distinguishable from the others based on very basic differences, from the headgear worn to what kind of turban the class wears. The developers did their homework on this one, since I can honestly see these Taliban soldiers doing battle with the Coalition in the very cities and valleys where the game takes place.
I won't say a lot about DICE's sound design, because there isn't much to say beyond: it's second to none. Battlefield Bad Company 2 took sound to a new level with bullets falling on snow, buildings collapsing and tanks sounding different from within and without to the sound of a 40mm grenade or a sniper bullet landing next to you. MoH does BC2 one better and, while I've never fired an M16 or an AK-47, I think this is as close as I'll ever get to actually shooting and hearing one. I hear the rattle of the bullets in the magazine of the LMG's and the wing whistle pass the knife when I miss with it. I even hear the sound of the chamber opening and closing on the bolt-action sniper rifles. DICE makes a point of putting the absolute best sounds in their games, and Medal of Honor is no exception.
Thanks for reading,
Xiant
Graphically speaking, this game is amazing. The computer I play on, and the one I write this blog on, has a much older graphics card, an NVidia 8600 GT. It stinks, I know. Regardless, even though I put almost everything on Low settings, the game looks wonderful. Granted, there's popup and the occasional see through then not see through walls, but overall it works. I think it's also a testament to the game that the low settings have the ability to blow my mind.
Specifically, I think the use of the small color pallet is really well done. Since Afghanistan is mostly a haze of greys, browns and other desert colors, that DICE managed to craft a game not only visually stimulating but that gives the ability to see enemies at almost any distance give credence to the subtle touches in the environments that separate them from the drab "there's more brown over there" graphics of other games. In the Kabul City Ruins map in particular, there is a huge range of colors concentrated in a very small area: namely, a silly looking TV. Breaking it is so very satisfying and almost always guarantees me a better game. The Helmand Valley map, on the other hand, is almost completely a set of five different brown shades scattered and mixed to create a desert environment. Even the tanks and trees and water is brown, if you can believe it. Again, it speaks to the skill with which DICE crafted the game that not only is the map entirely pleasing to look at, but it too allows you to see enemies from a great distance, if only as silhouettes.
The character design too is well done. Each class is immediately distinguishable from the others based on very basic differences, from the headgear worn to what kind of turban the class wears. The developers did their homework on this one, since I can honestly see these Taliban soldiers doing battle with the Coalition in the very cities and valleys where the game takes place.
I won't say a lot about DICE's sound design, because there isn't much to say beyond: it's second to none. Battlefield Bad Company 2 took sound to a new level with bullets falling on snow, buildings collapsing and tanks sounding different from within and without to the sound of a 40mm grenade or a sniper bullet landing next to you. MoH does BC2 one better and, while I've never fired an M16 or an AK-47, I think this is as close as I'll ever get to actually shooting and hearing one. I hear the rattle of the bullets in the magazine of the LMG's and the wing whistle pass the knife when I miss with it. I even hear the sound of the chamber opening and closing on the bolt-action sniper rifles. DICE makes a point of putting the absolute best sounds in their games, and Medal of Honor is no exception.
Thanks for reading,
Xiant
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Battlefield Bad Company 2 Updates and New Game Mode
This is something of a point of contention among the BC2 community. That is, of course putting in lightly. In reality, the flame wars in the community are rampant and widespread, with DICE/EA being the brunt of many insults and expletive filled comments. On release day for BC2, the EA servers dedicated to making the game run were completely overfilled, and only a fraction of the players had the ability to even join a game. Granted, game launches are hard to get right, but the degree to which the launch failed surprised and angered many. I myself couldn't play for about a week and a half, though once I started, I didn't feel like complaining. After playing for a while, there were some very specific complaints that I shared with many other players. Namely, overpowered M60's (a medic weapon) and grenade spam. The latter of the two was such a problem that players grabbed their assault kits and used the 40mm grenade as a primary weapon. The M60's damage killed in 4-6 hits at any range and it had dead on accuracy from any range. Add to this that there was very little falloff while moving and run and gun medics became a real issue.
DICE, in response to community outrage, responded with a huge update that balanced weapons, reduced damages and kill ranges, decreased accuracies and buffed weapons otherwise unused. This and many other things went into that first update, and the community was happy. For a time. New problems then began to pop up. First, knifing was now all but obsolete as it was only completely reliable when done from the front. Knifing from the back now did absolutely nothing except on a glitch or when the enemy was moving. People, like myself, who enjoyed sneaking up on enemy snipers (recon kit players) and knifing them in the back now had to actually shoot, hoping no one else heard the death and bullets firing. Secondly, and this was the only other in game complaint, rather than the 40mm grenade being a primary weapon, now rocket launchers took that mantle. In DICE's defense, they did decrease the kill radius of the rocket launchers, but did nothing to the damage against human targets. Why decreasing the kill radius increased the usage I cannot fathom, yet there you have it.
The other two large complaints came in the form of a lack of private servers being completely private. Currently, and the patch is coming out today or Monday on Steam, you need eight players for a private match. If you don't have that many friends, or friends that own BC2 and regularly play it, it really isn't great to be you. The second complaint is one that constantly evolves, as the consoles, PS3 and 360, received several updates while the PC got nothing. Add to this that a promotion and addition to the game, the SPECTACT kits, comes with the update, and you have a recipe for hatred and flame, which is exactly what DICE has.
What really exacerbated the whole problem is that DICE announced the update in early May, and it is only now, on June 23, that we actually get it. The huge delay, coupled with very little feedback till lately, and the continuing, lamer growing excuse of problems with Quality Assurance, did nothing to help DICE's case.
Now, one has to remember that when the update does in fact go live, a good portion of those people who wanted nothing more than proclaim DICE and EA as the worst game developer/publisher combination the world has ever known will undoubtedly shift their position completely around. DICE and EA, to them, will be the greatest community responders the world offers, and when called on their change in viewpoint will deny and circle the point until someone finds themselves banned.
On a more recent topic, BC2 Onslaught mode. On the surface this seems like a really novel idea. Four player co-op against AI opponents until the entire squad is overwhelmed. New and interesting, except Valve did it with Left 4 Dead two years ago. What saves DICE from being just ripping off Valve is the uniqueness of their class setups. In L4D, each player has exactly the same skills, whereas in BC2, there are medics, assaults, engineers and recons, each of which bring something different to the table. As I understand it, Onslaught mode has no goal, only survival. You keep going until each and every one of you dies with no hope of revival. If this means that entire squads will be medic and constantly revive one another remains to be seen, but somehow I think the game will make players chose one of the four kits and stick with it, making a team of four using all kits.
Either way, it'll be interesting.
Thanks for reading,
Xiant
DICE, in response to community outrage, responded with a huge update that balanced weapons, reduced damages and kill ranges, decreased accuracies and buffed weapons otherwise unused. This and many other things went into that first update, and the community was happy. For a time. New problems then began to pop up. First, knifing was now all but obsolete as it was only completely reliable when done from the front. Knifing from the back now did absolutely nothing except on a glitch or when the enemy was moving. People, like myself, who enjoyed sneaking up on enemy snipers (recon kit players) and knifing them in the back now had to actually shoot, hoping no one else heard the death and bullets firing. Secondly, and this was the only other in game complaint, rather than the 40mm grenade being a primary weapon, now rocket launchers took that mantle. In DICE's defense, they did decrease the kill radius of the rocket launchers, but did nothing to the damage against human targets. Why decreasing the kill radius increased the usage I cannot fathom, yet there you have it.
The other two large complaints came in the form of a lack of private servers being completely private. Currently, and the patch is coming out today or Monday on Steam, you need eight players for a private match. If you don't have that many friends, or friends that own BC2 and regularly play it, it really isn't great to be you. The second complaint is one that constantly evolves, as the consoles, PS3 and 360, received several updates while the PC got nothing. Add to this that a promotion and addition to the game, the SPECTACT kits, comes with the update, and you have a recipe for hatred and flame, which is exactly what DICE has.
What really exacerbated the whole problem is that DICE announced the update in early May, and it is only now, on June 23, that we actually get it. The huge delay, coupled with very little feedback till lately, and the continuing, lamer growing excuse of problems with Quality Assurance, did nothing to help DICE's case.
Now, one has to remember that when the update does in fact go live, a good portion of those people who wanted nothing more than proclaim DICE and EA as the worst game developer/publisher combination the world has ever known will undoubtedly shift their position completely around. DICE and EA, to them, will be the greatest community responders the world offers, and when called on their change in viewpoint will deny and circle the point until someone finds themselves banned.
On a more recent topic, BC2 Onslaught mode. On the surface this seems like a really novel idea. Four player co-op against AI opponents until the entire squad is overwhelmed. New and interesting, except Valve did it with Left 4 Dead two years ago. What saves DICE from being just ripping off Valve is the uniqueness of their class setups. In L4D, each player has exactly the same skills, whereas in BC2, there are medics, assaults, engineers and recons, each of which bring something different to the table. As I understand it, Onslaught mode has no goal, only survival. You keep going until each and every one of you dies with no hope of revival. If this means that entire squads will be medic and constantly revive one another remains to be seen, but somehow I think the game will make players chose one of the four kits and stick with it, making a team of four using all kits.
Either way, it'll be interesting.
Thanks for reading,
Xiant
Sunday, June 20, 2010
The Medic Update and Medal of Honor
So, yes, I finally dove into the MoH beta tonight. But more on that later. First is the medic update. With the engineer update still to be released, and with the changes the medics update weapon underwent, I'll stray from speculation as to what the shotgun revealed in the Mac Update video actually is.
The medic's update weapon is called the Blutsauger, or Bloodsucker/Vampire in German, when released, was probably the most powerful weapon one could think of for the medic. Not only did it allow the medic to retain his slow health regeneration, but it also healed him as he did damage with it. Of course, that the medic even needs a close range weapon should be a non-issue, seeing as their job is to keep the killers alive. One must also put into play that the medic update was not even named the Medic Update. Rather, it was the Gold Rush update, the first major update to the game, and they tagged along the medic's weapons and achievements with it.
The main drawback to the Blutsauger came at the cost of random critical hits when fired. Offset by the massive +3 health boost per each needle, at ten needles per second, this really didn't hinder it. Add to this that in competitive gameplay random criticals are turned off, and suddenly the Blutsauger became the go-to weapon for medics the world over (in TF2, of course). On September 15th, 2009, Valve changed the Blut's effect on the medic and the medic's abilities themselves. Without the Blut equipped, he now recovers from 4-6 hp per second, but with the Blut only 1-3. At first it may not seem like such a big deal, especially with random criticals reinstated, but playing a Blutsauger medic, and I can say this from experience, is almost detrimental to your health. The increased health regeneration saves precious seconds to reach a health kit or get behind allies. Plus, since the damage output for both the main syringe gun and the Blutsauger is the same, it really comes down to what you want to sacrifice and your confidence with your needle aiming. Watch competitive medic play now and you'll see a mix of syringe run and Blutsauger play, though the former is now the more prevalent.
Enough about that though. Let's talk Medal of Honor. Let me start out by saying that, no, it is not a Modern Warfare 2 clone, nor is it Battlefield: Bad Company 2 repackaged. Rather, it is a little bit of both with some major tweaks from both. On the MW2 side, there is the decreased map size, the high intensity action and the fast, sharp gameplay. On the BC2 side, there is the excellent sound design, weapon animations and team based, tactical play that must occur for a team to win hands down. There is also the kit selection system that limits you only as much as the beta is allowed to contain, even though customization is still quite varied. The little something extra is the realism that comes in MoH. Calling in a mortar strike is quick, but what is really rewarding is seeing that walkie-talkie calling in a UAV, or the cell phone detonate the C4. Also, the battlefields are real places, created with the utmost care for balance and game enjoyment. The weapons too look and feel like real weapons, and the sounds they make sound like the actual gun. Also, there's a tank. And tanks are always awesome. Granted, the bullets and cannon of the tank take way too many hits to kill right now, but given the confined space of the map (currently there's only one) in which a tank gets used, that's okay. They also need to be harder to destroy, though not to the extent of BC2. I killed one with my gun's grenade launcher, so something's wrong there.
Speaking for myself, for what else can I do, I think I'll grow to lie MoH because it is not MW2. The killstreaks, while not named such, are decidedly not MW2 killstreaks. Getting 11 kills will not let you pilot a chopper with explosive rounds or a giant plane with guns the size of houses. You get one missile that you guide yourself or a strategically placed mortar/rocket strike that then goes out of your control. There is not the constant fear of joining a game to nuke-boosters or hackers (as yet), though camping still plays a little part. I saw one of those today. Killed the little bastard too. Excuse me. Can't stand campers. The support streaks also help: new ammo types and UAV recons and others keep the game balanced without causing player to hunker down in houses and wait out the storm. If there is any CoD game I could compare MoH to in any way, its CoD4. Minus the helicopter and add some more awesome (yes, I said it), there is a real comparison to be made.
But that is a story for another time.
Thanks for reading,
Xiant
The medic's update weapon is called the Blutsauger, or Bloodsucker/Vampire in German, when released, was probably the most powerful weapon one could think of for the medic. Not only did it allow the medic to retain his slow health regeneration, but it also healed him as he did damage with it. Of course, that the medic even needs a close range weapon should be a non-issue, seeing as their job is to keep the killers alive. One must also put into play that the medic update was not even named the Medic Update. Rather, it was the Gold Rush update, the first major update to the game, and they tagged along the medic's weapons and achievements with it.
The main drawback to the Blutsauger came at the cost of random critical hits when fired. Offset by the massive +3 health boost per each needle, at ten needles per second, this really didn't hinder it. Add to this that in competitive gameplay random criticals are turned off, and suddenly the Blutsauger became the go-to weapon for medics the world over (in TF2, of course). On September 15th, 2009, Valve changed the Blut's effect on the medic and the medic's abilities themselves. Without the Blut equipped, he now recovers from 4-6 hp per second, but with the Blut only 1-3. At first it may not seem like such a big deal, especially with random criticals reinstated, but playing a Blutsauger medic, and I can say this from experience, is almost detrimental to your health. The increased health regeneration saves precious seconds to reach a health kit or get behind allies. Plus, since the damage output for both the main syringe gun and the Blutsauger is the same, it really comes down to what you want to sacrifice and your confidence with your needle aiming. Watch competitive medic play now and you'll see a mix of syringe run and Blutsauger play, though the former is now the more prevalent.
Enough about that though. Let's talk Medal of Honor. Let me start out by saying that, no, it is not a Modern Warfare 2 clone, nor is it Battlefield: Bad Company 2 repackaged. Rather, it is a little bit of both with some major tweaks from both. On the MW2 side, there is the decreased map size, the high intensity action and the fast, sharp gameplay. On the BC2 side, there is the excellent sound design, weapon animations and team based, tactical play that must occur for a team to win hands down. There is also the kit selection system that limits you only as much as the beta is allowed to contain, even though customization is still quite varied. The little something extra is the realism that comes in MoH. Calling in a mortar strike is quick, but what is really rewarding is seeing that walkie-talkie calling in a UAV, or the cell phone detonate the C4. Also, the battlefields are real places, created with the utmost care for balance and game enjoyment. The weapons too look and feel like real weapons, and the sounds they make sound like the actual gun. Also, there's a tank. And tanks are always awesome. Granted, the bullets and cannon of the tank take way too many hits to kill right now, but given the confined space of the map (currently there's only one) in which a tank gets used, that's okay. They also need to be harder to destroy, though not to the extent of BC2. I killed one with my gun's grenade launcher, so something's wrong there.
Speaking for myself, for what else can I do, I think I'll grow to lie MoH because it is not MW2. The killstreaks, while not named such, are decidedly not MW2 killstreaks. Getting 11 kills will not let you pilot a chopper with explosive rounds or a giant plane with guns the size of houses. You get one missile that you guide yourself or a strategically placed mortar/rocket strike that then goes out of your control. There is not the constant fear of joining a game to nuke-boosters or hackers (as yet), though camping still plays a little part. I saw one of those today. Killed the little bastard too. Excuse me. Can't stand campers. The support streaks also help: new ammo types and UAV recons and others keep the game balanced without causing player to hunker down in houses and wait out the storm. If there is any CoD game I could compare MoH to in any way, its CoD4. Minus the helicopter and add some more awesome (yes, I said it), there is a real comparison to be made.
But that is a story for another time.
Thanks for reading,
Xiant
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)