Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Star Wars Battlefront II - Reddit Claims ALL Characters Can be Unlocked in 24-Hours* - MMORPG.com N

2»

Comments

  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 19,852
    Asheram said:
    Why are people trying to compare this multiplayer fps game to MMOs and single player games progression wise? Apparently those who are trying to use those as comparisons have not really played many shooters.
    Edit NVM about the single player part as there is a single player campaign so hopefully they just comparing that part against single player and not the mp part.

    Shooters come in both vertical and horizontal progression varieties. BL2 and Bioshock have both kinds. I don't like progression in PvP but it's not uncommon. R6:Siege has better heroes locked behind progression and/or payments. Destiny 2 offers both "quick play", which is gear normalized, and "competitive" PvP which isn't normalized.

    Not all shooters that have single player campaigns use vertical progression either. World War 2 has a shallow progression curve and PvE campaign.

    Every game is subjective that way in my opinion. Pacing matters more than some random number some gamer pulled out of their butt. I have just under 60 hours in Destiny 2 (https://www.wastedondestiny.com/search/arkadyrandom,arkadyrandom$1754) and two characters at LL 277 and 278. I haven't even hit 280 yet to unlock purchasing legendary mods and it the pacing feels a bit generous to my taste. But then again it's not all about LL305. It's about collecting the arsenal loadout you rock with, at LL305. That takes a few more weeks.

    TL;DR - There aren't any rules about horizontal and vertical progression in shooters. There are popular examples of both design approaches.
    Fedora - A modern, free, and open source Operating System. https://getfedora.org/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


  • WarlyxWarlyx Member RarePosts: 2,926
    seem ppl are confused about what BF:II is , multiplayer shooter game...that skills and traits are all based around what cards u have equiped. U can change cards like u can change equipment in other shooters (when respawning ) , so having multiple cards is good ....plus cards can be upgraded... common , uncommon , rare , epic , legendary ....

  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 19,852
    More PvE stuff. Thanks.

    This is what matters to me. All but about 30 minutes of my time in D2 has been in PvE. I want open maps, public events, the mazes, dungeons, and the fun PvE stuff like that. If Battle Front 2 is mostly PvP with some single player AI maps then this isn't the game for me and I'm okay with that. But if there is a ton of PvE where I can solo or coop to my hearts content then I'll put this on my watchlist.
    Fedora - A modern, free, and open source Operating System. https://getfedora.org/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


  • AsheramAsheram Member EpicPosts: 3,893
    edited November 2017
    Torval said:
    Asheram said:
    Why are people trying to compare this multiplayer fps game to MMOs and single player games progression wise? Apparently those who are trying to use those as comparisons have not really played many shooters.
    Edit NVM about the single player part as there is a single player campaign so hopefully they just comparing that part against single player and not the mp part.

    Shooters come in both vertical and horizontal progression varieties. BL2 and Bioshock have both kinds. I don't like progression in PvP but it's not uncommon. R6:Siege has better heroes locked behind progression and/or payments. Destiny 2 offers both "quick play", which is gear normalized, and "competitive" PvP which isn't normalized.

    Not all shooters that have single player campaigns use vertical progression either. World War 2 has a shallow progression curve and PvE campaign.

    Every game is subjective that way in my opinion. Pacing matters more than some random number some gamer pulled out of their butt. I have just under 60 hours in Destiny 2 (https://www.wastedondestiny.com/search/arkadyrandom,arkadyrandom$1754) and two characters at LL 277 and 278. I haven't even hit 280 yet to unlock purchasing legendary mods and it the pacing feels a bit generous to my taste. But then again it's not all about LL305. It's about collecting the arsenal loadout you rock with, at LL305. That takes a few more weeks.

    TL;DR - There aren't any rules about horizontal and vertical progression in shooters. There are popular examples of both design approaches.
    My comment should have been a reply to immodium sry. Shodanas didn't want progression in his multiplayer shooter, esp you had to pay for on top of the box price and immodium is using mmo as comparisons in his response to him even going so far to wonder why he is surprised when some MMOs go on to charge a sub after first 30 days. The problem with that answer is this game is NOT an mmo.
    But then again I guess every game is an mmo now if it has more than one player.
  • DaakkonDaakkon Member UncommonPosts: 603
    Asheram said:
    Torval said:
    Asheram said:
    Why are people trying to compare this multiplayer fps game to MMOs and single player games progression wise? Apparently those who are trying to use those as comparisons have not really played many shooters.
    Edit NVM about the single player part as there is a single player campaign so hopefully they just comparing that part against single player and not the mp part.

    Shooters come in both vertical and horizontal progression varieties. BL2 and Bioshock have both kinds. I don't like progression in PvP but it's not uncommon. R6:Siege has better heroes locked behind progression and/or payments. Destiny 2 offers both "quick play", which is gear normalized, and "competitive" PvP which isn't normalized.

    Not all shooters that have single player campaigns use vertical progression either. World War 2 has a shallow progression curve and PvE campaign.

    Every game is subjective that way in my opinion. Pacing matters more than some random number some gamer pulled out of their butt. I have just under 60 hours in Destiny 2 (https://www.wastedondestiny.com/search/arkadyrandom,arkadyrandom$1754) and two characters at LL 277 and 278. I haven't even hit 280 yet to unlock purchasing legendary mods and it the pacing feels a bit generous to my taste. But then again it's not all about LL305. It's about collecting the arsenal loadout you rock with, at LL305. That takes a few more weeks.

    TL;DR - There aren't any rules about horizontal and vertical progression in shooters. There are popular examples of both design approaches.
    My comment should have been a reply to immodium sry. Shodanas didn't want progression in his multiplayer shooter, esp you had to pay for on top of the box price and immodium is using mmo as comparisons in his response to him even going so far to wonder why he is surprised when some MMOs go on to charge a sub after first 30 days. The problem with that answer is this game is NOT an mmo.
    You're 100% right! This game is not an MMO and shouldn't even be compared to one. But since this IS an MMO site, and we're talking about MMO's as well, I for one was never against the sub model. I was well aware that my game was getting patched, and new content was always on the horizon. I remember how excited I was when I was playing Dark Age of Cameltoe and the Shrouded Isles expansion came out. I was right there day 1 to buy that, and then Trial of Atlantis came out and it killed my interest in the game. Same thing happened in UO for Trammel, same thing happened in EQ with Luclin. Devs we're able to release well made content just merely based on box sales and sub models. Then cash shops came into the mix and pretty much eliminated the need for a sub model. I miss those days, I paid $10-$15/m for quality content, and endless entertainment. :'(
  • holdenhamletholdenhamlet Member EpicPosts: 3,756
    edited November 2017


    I was looking at getting the game but after looking at the price .. and the fact that had I bought the Deluxe pack I would get advanced features, like do more damage and such ... how is this not Pay to win?
    I think I have just saved myself some money as I will not buy into a game that favours those who can throw more money at it, and then look at buying more DCL packs a few months later ... PASS



    Agreed. As soon as I saw that you unlock epic stuff if you buy the "deluxe" version, I was done. That's a micro-transaction before you even install the game!

    I am still very interested in the game because it's Star Wars and looks beautiful, but until I see a guarantee that there will be no MTs in the game, at least for like a year, I'm passing. Keep in mind they can still sell "expansions" with new maps, and will make plenty of money doing that. They don't need to ruin the game by making it all about who spent more money.

    We have MMOs for that kind of stuff, don't need it in Battlefield.

    One thing I am happy about is the community (at least reddit) collectively said "F U" to this kind of garbage, finally.
    OldKingLoginfomatz
  • Geddon95405Geddon95405 Member UncommonPosts: 110
    I miss when games included everything at release and I just unlocked everything by playing the game without redonk grinds. In fact, extra unlockables were built into the games just to motivate my purchase.

    Now games are as marginal and grindy as possible with extra money for anything they believe the market will bear.
    OldKingLoginfomatzShodanas

    Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women...

  • OldKingLogOldKingLog Member UncommonPosts: 46
    I miss when games included everything at release and I just unlocked everything by playing the game without redonk grinds. In fact, extra unlockables were built into the games just to motivate my purchase.

    Now games are as marginal and grindy as possible with extra money for anything they believe the market will bear.
    And it looks like BF2 managed to not only break that camel's back but all of its legs as well, and then set the poor beast on fire. While I'm probably being overly optimistic I hope that maybe the outcry over BF2's repugnant cash shop practices will make both EA and other companies think twice before trying this garbage again.
    holdenhamletinfomatz
  • esc-joconnoresc-joconnor Member RarePosts: 1,096
    Am I the only one that assumes any game from EA will be a nickle and diming cash grab minimum effort that could be shut down at any moment? I'm happy to wait for Galaxy in Turmoil. Even while Anthem is looking good, I don't think I'll be pre-ordering that, will wait for release reviews. Waiting paid off for Mass Effect.
    Shodanas
  • AeanderAeander Member LegendaryPosts: 4,940
    kaz350 said:

    Shodanas said:

    So, i pay 60 euros for a AAA game with locked content and i have to be thankful for the fact that i "only" need 24 hours of game play in order to unlock said content ?

    Sod off.



    lol so games arent supposed to have progression? uhhhh
    It isn't an MMO. It's a multiplayer competitive shooter. That's an entirely different type of game with entirely different needs. A shooter without a level playing field is simply a bad game.
    saintriku92SiugGorwe
  • saintriku92saintriku92 Member UncommonPosts: 87
    i dont mind fps with progression, i loved call of duty modern warfare, or cod4 as i call it. there was no buy your way to the best guns. you had to play the game to unlock the guns and even then the starter guns were still competitively designed. Id gladly take paid maps over this garbage, even if it does separate the player base.
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    immodium said:
    immodium said:
    immodium said:
    Shodanas said:
    So, i pay 60 euros for a AAA game with locked content and i have to be thankful for the fact that i "only" need 24 hours of game play in order to unlock said content ?

    Sod off.
    In the past publishers charged you full price for a game then if you wanted to play beyond the first 30 days you had to pay an additional fee.

    I'm honestly surprised at the MMO community being in shock at a practice they've been supporting (Not loot boxes/microtransactions, the idea that it's ok to keep charging a gamer a fee to play a game they've already purchased) for nearly 20 years.
    Except MMO's are completely different. You were paying monthly to get support for the game for as long as it is up. Server costs, keeping a dev team working on the game with patches and updates, and basically paying for any support the game is still getting. With other games you don't usually get continued support unless it is released in the form of an expansion or DLC. 
    Todays MMO's prove they can do all that even without a mandatory subscription. Or even a box price.
    By offering extremely large cash shops and pay to win features. 
    Which are entirely optional. No purchase is required from the one's I've played.
    And Iselin has already given a great example in another thread of how those shops alter the design philosophies employed.  It isn't rocket science.  The argument that it equates to a sub is grossly inaccurate.
    Siug

    image
  • skadadskadad Member UncommonPosts: 389
    Aeander said:
    kaz350 said:

    Shodanas said:

    So, i pay 60 euros for a AAA game with locked content and i have to be thankful for the fact that i "only" need 24 hours of game play in order to unlock said content ?

    Sod off.



    lol so games arent supposed to have progression? uhhhh
    It isn't an MMO. It's a multiplayer competitive shooter. That's an entirely different type of game with entirely different needs. A shooter without a level playing field is simply a bad game.
    seems like some shooters with progression sell pretty well and become successful series, like battlefield and CoD for example, although battlefield has gone down the drain lately.
  • acidbloodacidblood Member RarePosts: 861
    edited November 2017
    Am I the only one that assumes any game from EA will be a nickle and diming cash grab minimum effort that could be shut down at any moment? I'm happy to wait for Galaxy in Turmoil. Even while Anthem is looking good, I don't think I'll be pre-ordering that, will wait for release reviews. Waiting paid off for Mass Effect.

    Given their recent releases (edit: by which I mean anything in the last 5 or so years), 'buggy half-a**ed money grab' is my default assumption for any EA or Activision game, with Ubisoft and Bethesda rating only slightly higher.

    As for the 24 hours thing (which I assume is time played), meh, doesn't sound so bad if you enjoy the game... the real issue with these random progression systems though (P2W or not) is that you can't really work towards a particular goal (like unlocking all of a certain class or heroes powers) in any sort of timely manner, which ultimately makes them de-motivating (i.e. the opposite of what a progression system should be).


  • GorweGorwe Member EpicPosts: 6,301
    kaz350 said:

    Shodanas said:

    So, i pay 60 euros for a AAA game with locked content and i have to be thankful for the fact that i "only" need 24 hours of game play in order to unlock said content ?

    Sod off.



    lol so games arent supposed to have progression? uhhhh
    Not every genre needs progression. Look at the mess DoW 3 got itself into due to progression. Action games also don't need progression.
  • GorweGorwe Member EpicPosts: 6,301
    immodium said:
    Shodanas said:
    So, i pay 60 euros for a AAA game with locked content and i have to be thankful for the fact that i "only" need 24 hours of game play in order to unlock said content ?

    Sod off.
    In the past publishers charged you full price for a game then if you wanted to play beyond the first 30 days you had to pay an additional fee.

    I'm honestly surprised at the MMO community being in shock at a practice they've been supporting (Not loot boxes/microtransactions, the idea that it's ok to keep charging a gamer a fee to play a game they've already purchased) for nearly 20 years.
    Except MMO's are completely different. You were paying monthly to get support for the game for as long as it is up. Server costs, keeping a dev team working on the game with patches and updates, and basically paying for any support the game is still getting. With other games you don't usually get continued support unless it is released in the form of an expansion or DLC. 
    Even with WoW, how often do you get your money's worth? At the very least 100$ / year. Like 3 indie games' worth. Never forget the content drougths etc. Yet...Grim Dawn and Vermintide are better supported even WITHOUT cash shop or Subscription. You know.
  • hyllyhhyllyh Member UncommonPosts: 250
    press up up down up down right + X and turn on yourself, a jar jar will appear...
    really, want a fast food game, you can finish it in 12 mn and cry for week for content...
    where's entertainment? crying reddit baby: i want all , now, for myself... really s*ck
Sign In or Register to comment.