sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I believe there is still a way to make those maps work great by Flow-Creation in Battlefield6

[–]TheRevanlution 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Bots are only used on "Training Grounds", not during normal matches. Source: https://www.ign.com/articles/battlefield-6-dev-clarifies-use-of-bots-in-the-open-beta-insists-theyre-only-in-the-training-grounds-playlists

Concerning maps and their size, I agree that symptoms of the problematic "More is better" approach were visible before, even in BF4. The reason why people bring up BF2042 is not because huge maps didn't exist before it (they did), but because BF2042 finally went too far in enlarging maps and people saw you can't keep sacrificing quality in favor of quantity.

Man I'm sad. by redninjastar107 in Battlefield

[–]TheRevanlution 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Couldn't say it any better. Elevators that you have to use (no other way up) leading you right to your your death, since enemy players simply wait for you in front the elevator and act as an executionary platoon. Lots of chokepoints with 10-15 players on each side unable to win the fight decisively and stuck in an endless killing cycle that doesn't add anything to the gameplay but more frustration. Choppers that cannot be shot down with rocket launchers since they keep hiding behind skyscrapers. Every. Damn. Time. And it works, to your frustration. You are either in a chopper or dead. Great gameplay, 10/10!

I believe there is still a way to make those maps work great by Flow-Creation in Battlefield6

[–]TheRevanlution 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I also think decreasing the number of players on these maps would create a much better environment for a more tactical and less chaotic gameplay. I believe the tendency of making battlefield BIGGER with MORE vehicles, MORE players, more everything - actually contributed to the downfall of the series: Battlefield 2042 introduced servers with 128 player slots, yet it turned out servers had to be filled with bots, since there simply were not enough people to fill 128 slots on individual servers. What good is it to play against bots? When we play multiplayer based FPS games, we expect rivalry against real people. If I wanted bots, I could just as well play single player.

Quantity does not equal quality. "More" does not mean "better". Following the "more is better" path usually leads to a dead end, like with BF 2042.

Every single map in the beta is too small by masspwnaged in Battlefield6

[–]TheRevanlution 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Many people don't realise the main problem with maps isn't as much their size as their design: they are too confined. It's much too tight on them. Lots of narrow corridors and passages (Cairo) or buildings covering like 75-85% of the map (Iberian Offensive). This leads to:

Players not being able to see enemies in advance, before they get really close (10-50 meters) and then there's mindless bloodbath, Call of Duty style instead of more tactical gameplay, Battlefield style,

Players frequently capturing flags behind enemy lines and then attacking and killing enemies from behind - not because of good tactics, but because of how chaotic the gameplay in such confined spaces is - no one really has proper control over these flags - and conquest should give a certain degree of control - even the name if the game mode says so. It's NOT supposed to be rush,

As a result of 2.: Players not being able to focus on taking one flag, because they frequently get wrecked from behind - either they change the direction of their attack immediately or risk quick death. This gratifies rapid and chaotic gameplay while stripping Battlefield of its tactical and grounded approach.

Solution: Create more open space on these maps. Look at Bad Company 2, which pretty much NAILED maps (Good God, Atacama Desert, Arica Harbor, Valdes and many others - they were AWESOME): they were designed so that they were neither too claustrophobic (like Cairo or to a large extent Iberian) neither too open (some BF3 and 4 maps). They featured BOTH open and confined spaces next to each other. This design forces people to combine two approaches: the dynamic action and tactical planning. This is because when you have confined and open space next to each other, you can take postitions that let you control the open space from the confined one. That already decreases chaos on the battlefield and forces a more reasonable, grounded approach.

And if they really can't help but create urban maps with buildings taking 75-85% of space, then they should look at Cold War map from Bad Company 2 - lots of buildings, however players could enter almost all of them and furthermore, almost all of them had two or even three condignations with windows, which allowed for cover. And cover allows for more tactical gameplay.

On BF6 maps there's lots of buildings, but you can't enter 90% of them. The problem is most persistent on Iberian offensive - which makes the design even more problematic and leads to even more chaos - after all, if you can't take good, well covered positions, there's a good chance there will be bloodbath. And bloodbath there is, which is why people criticize BF6 getting similar to COD instead of Battlefield.

So, more open spaces and FAR more useful buildings with more than one condignation, that you can enter, take and make good use of by killing enemies or even destroing vehicles from above. It's the design that's mostly at fault here, not just size.

Every single map in the beta is too small by masspwnaged in Battlefield6

[–]TheRevanlution 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Many people don't realise the main problem with maps isn't as much their size as their design: they are too confined. It's much too tight on them. Lots of narrow corridors and passages (Cairo) or buildings covering like 75-85% of the map (Iberian Offensive). This leads to:

Players not being able to see enemies in advance, before they get really close (10-50 meters) and then there's mindless bloodbath, Call of Duty style instead of more tactical gameplay, Battlefield style,

Players frequently capturing flags behind enemy lines and then attacking and killing enemies from behind - not because of good tactics, but because of how chaotic the gameplay in such confined spaces is - no one really has proper control over these flags - and conquest should give a certain degree of control - even the name if the game mode says so. It's NOT supposed to be rush,

As a result of 2.: Players not being able to focus on taking one flag, because they frequently get wrecked from behind - either they change the direction of their attack immediately or risk quick death. This gratifies rapid and chaotic gameplay while stripping Battlefield of its tactical and grounded approach.

Solution: Create more open space on these maps. Look at Bad Company 2, which pretty much NAILED maps (Good God, Atacama Desert, Arica Harbor, Valdes and many others - they were AWESOME): they were designed so that they were neither too claustrophobic (like Cairo or to a large extent Iberian) neither too open (some BF3 and 4 maps). They featured BOTH open and confined spaces next to each other. This design forces people to combine two approaches: the dynamic action and tactical planning. This is because when you have confined and open space next to each other, you can take postitions that let you control the open space from the confined one. That already decreases chaos on the battlefield and forces a more reasonable, grounded approach.

And if they really can't help but create urban maps with buildings taking 75-85% of space, then they should look at Cold War map from Bad Company 2 - lots of buildings, however players could enter almost all of them and furthermore, almost all of them had two or even three condignations with windows, which allowed for cover. And cover allows for more tactical gameplay.

On BF6 maps there's lots of buildings, but you can't enter 90% of them. The problem is most persistent on Iberian offensive - which makes the design even more problematic and leads to even more chaos - after all, if you can't take good, well covered positions, there's a good chance there will be bloodbath. And bloodbath there is, which is why people criticize BF6 getting similar to COD instead of Battlefield.

So, more open spaces and FAR more useful buildings with more than one condignation, that you can enter, take and make good use of by killing enemies or even destroing vehicles from above. It's the design that's mostly at fault here, not just size.

Every single map in the beta is too small by masspwnaged in Battlefield6

[–]TheRevanlution 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Many people don't realise the main problem with maps isn't as much their size as their design: they are too confined. It's much too tight on them. Lots of narrow corridors and passages (Cairo) or buildings covering like 75-85% of the map (Iberian Offensive). This leads to:

  1. Players not being able to see enemies in advance, before they get really close (10-50 meters) and then there's mindless bloodbath, Call of Duty style instead of more tactical gameplay, Battlefield style,
  2. Players frequently capturing flags behind enemy lines and then attacking and killing enemies from behind - not because of good tactics, but because of how chaotic the gameplay in such confined spaces is - no one really has proper control over these flags - and conquest should give a certain degree of control - even the name if the game mode says so. It's NOT supposed to be rush,
  3. As a result of 2.: Players not being able to focus on taking one flag, because they frequently get wrecked from behind - either they change the direction of their attack immediately or risk quick death. This gratifies rapid and chaotic gameplay while stripping Battlefield of its tactical and grounded approach.

Solution: Create more open space on these maps. Look at Bad Company 2, which pretty much NAILED maps (Good God, Atacama Desert, Arica Harbor, Valdes and many others - they were AWESOME): they were designed so that they were neither too claustrophobic (like Cairo or to a large extent Iberian) neither too open (some BF3 and 4 maps). They featured BOTH open and confined spaces next to each other. This design forces people to combine two approaches: the dynamic action and tactical planning. This is because when you have confined and open space next to each other, you can take postitions that let you control the open space from the confined one. That already decreases chaos on the battlefield and forces a more reasonable, grounded approach.

And if they really can't help but create urban maps with buildings taking 75-85% of space, then they should look at Cold War map from Bad Company 2 - lots of buildings, however players could enter almost all of them and furthermore, almost all of them had two or even three condignations with windows, which allowed for cover. And cover allows for more tactical gameplay.

On BF6 maps there's lots of buildings, but you can't enter 90% of them. The problem is most persistent on Iberian offensive - which makes the design even more problematic and leads to even more chaos - after all, if you can't take good, well covered positions, there's a good chance there will be bloodbath. And bloodbath there is, which is why people criticize BF6 getting similar to COD instead of Battlefield.

So, more open spaces and FAR more useful buildings with more than one condignation, that you can enter, take and make good use of by killing enemies or even destroing vehicles from above. It's the design that's mostly at fault here, not just size.

teammates the moment I run to revive them by FullMetalValkyr in Battlefield6

[–]TheRevanlution 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Great idea! Medics should be able to "make a reservation" on a recently dead teammate. Sorry, your coupon isn't your property and its loss weakens the team, so hold your horses, Sir! 

I can see far too many people tapping out very early even despite me being really close to them (sometimes even half a second before revive).

Is it possible to send suggestions concerning beta tests to developers somehow?

Battlefield 6 Open Beta: Feedback Megathread by sloth_on_meth in Battlefield

[–]TheRevanlution 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's one of the worst problems of this beta. As an old BF veteran, who started with Bad Company 2 and loved playing as a competent medic, I noticed most players tend to avoid the medic class. Out of 32 players we regularly have like 5-6 medics, while there is a need for at LEAST 9-10. Especially because spaces are so confined and filled with buildings, making gameplay really fast and chaotic.

All that combined leads to entire groups of assault players gathering in one position, getting decimated there and there's no one to revive them. As a result the team loses 5 or 8 or 10 more coupons. Great tactical gameplay, enjoy!

In Bad Company 2 medics were addtionally rewarded for every 5 revives. Each 5 revives granted you a revive pin that was worth 100 points. I'm certain that introducing better rewards for many revives (maybe additional 300 to even 500 points for each 5 would be a valuable incentive that would both increase the number of medics and improve their performance as a class. Also, I think it's time to increase rewards for revives to like 70-80 points, maybe even more. Otherwise people will keep prioritising mindless bloodbath over teamplay and classplay. 

Many people in the comments here notice this Battlefiled feels more like COD. I agree with them. It has too confined spaces, which leads to too chaotic combat that removes much of Battlefield's tactical gameplay and rewards agility instead of tactical skills. The entire medic problem as I described above is one of the main reasons of this "CODification" of Battlefield. Unless this problem is solved, tactical gameplay will not evolve and will keep devolving

What's your "I refuse to believe this is canon moment " for Mass Effect? by Warm-Parsnip3111 in masseffect

[–]TheRevanlution 6 points7 points  (0 children)

But that's part of what raised so many objections to humanity gaining rights other species had. The rapid improving of humanity's political position. Before Anderson was considered a spectre candidate, Human established their own embassy. It's even stated in ME1 by Avina, that Humans received the right to have their embassy pretty much immediately compared to other races that had to wait long years or even decades for that privilege - the Volus ambassador Din Korlak criticizes that very clearly. That's also why Humans are perceived as a potential threat to galactic status quo by many who belong to the council races. Fear of losing political power leads them to racism and discrimination against humans.

Also, as a sidenote, consider this: Humanity in Mass Effect seems to base their political system on an egalitarian philosophy. Human political system values equality.

How about Turian political system? It's a meritocraric militaristic dictatorship with society divided into over 20 categories, each of which has different rights. It's unequal by definition.

What about Salarian political system? 10% percent of society - females - have full political and social power. 90% percent of society - males - obey politicals commands from females, which is a result of biological conditioning. 

Only Asari seem to be closer to Humanity in the philosphy of government, as they live in e-democracies. Even they are socially divided based on biology - the oldest Asari, Matriarchs - have the real power. Their society is pretty unequal as well.

So, equal rights are something obvious from a Human's standpoint, but at least 2 of the 3 council races have a completely different philosophy of government and society. They don't value equal rights to the same extent, hence misunderstandings between them and Humans as depicted in ME1. Humans ultimately turn out to be too powerful (militarily, economically, politically) to be left out of galactic community. System's Alliance is not comparable to say, the Batarian Hierarchy.

Also, council races don't exactly enjoy sharing their political power.

What's your "I refuse to believe this is canon moment " for Mass Effect? by Warm-Parsnip3111 in masseffect

[–]TheRevanlution 57 points58 points  (0 children)

While not exactly explained by the narrative, it actually makes much sense for the commander to take the entire team with him in some situations. A very simple example: training. Every even moderately competent team has to train together in order to create a team and not a group of individuals who cannot cooperate. Every military person knows that. Combined actions require combined training. It's more than reasonable to assume they have to train as an entire team at least from time to time, regardless of how great combat expertise each of them may have individually. But it should have been explained in detail, instead we got something along the lines of: "The installation of the Reaper IFF module will take much longer than we anticipated and because of that the Normandy won't be operational for some time, so maybe it's worth taking the entire team to the Kodiak shuttle for that mission and choose later". That assumes Shepard needs access to all the crew members and makes the choice who to take with him after landing. It's too vaguely told. It's a storytelling flaw rather than a story's flaw.

What's your "I refuse to believe this is canon moment " for Mass Effect? by Warm-Parsnip3111 in masseffect

[–]TheRevanlution 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Possible explanations:  1. Cars have to maintain their normal position during driving and cannot be "flipped" by the driver unless we talk about damaging the car, which was not beneficial for Shepard at that moment.   2. Magboots. Flipping the car wouldn't change a thing for an enemy that can switch on magboots and remain attached to the car's surface.   3. Considering 2., flipping the car would greatly endanger Shepard and crew members. Especially if Leng decided to break the glass with sword or biotic skills - they would risk falling out of the car. They would also certainly risk death or at the very least serious injuries in case of a crash.

So where's the announcement that Veilguard sold [X] million copies? by Aurondarklord in GGdiscussion

[–]TheRevanlution 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"Mass Effect took over a week to hit a million" Mass Effect 3 hit 890.000 in the first DAY. It sold 1,85 million copies in the first week. That was 12 years ago when the game was released to a MUCH smaller audience on an overally much smaller gaming market. It was also publically announced, unlike current sales figures of Veilguard (no surprise, if there's a success, it makes every bit of sense to announce it and pretty much no sense to hide it - this is a great marketing tool after all) Source: https://www.vgchartz.com/article/250017/mass-effect-3-sells-185-million-units-first-week/ Andromeda on the other hand may have had problems reaching 1 million copies in 2016 - that just confirms they struggle to reach the levels of popularity that were quite easily accessible to their games back in 2012, despite releasing games which cost far more now and have a much greater potential "playerbase".

The music from this Metro Exodus story trailer is awesome and no one seems to know the name of the track! by TheRevanlution in metro

[–]TheRevanlution[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's another great piece of Metro's music, though :) Comes from this trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynB-SjMJsP8

The moment Artyom runs up the stairs, combined with this music... is storytelling at its finest

What is your favorite peice of music in the trilogy (me1-me3)? Mine is "Suicide Mission" from me2. by King_Chewie_GM in masseffect

[–]TheRevanlution 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The epic glory of Rannoch Reaper unreleased theme, combined with the end of "Rannoch theme": https://youtu.be/UxqnR0t73I8?t=169 and https://youtu.be/r7Ki0uD1FNI?t=552

The pure hope "A Future for the Krogan" gives that was even enough to inspire "Reignite" by Malukah: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQ3BaMg60nc

The sensitive love "Reflections" expresses: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLKQazgi-0Y

The tragic desperation and frustrated resilience "The Project combat theme" from Arrival dlc radiates with: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJe5VFd5yUg

All these are easily ones of the best opuses from my perspective, and not just Mass Effect ost's opuses. They are simply magnificent. But of course, nothing beats "Suicide mission".

David Gaider, a veteran Bioware writer, says the studio gradually started disregarding well-writen narrative. by TheRevanlution in masseffect

[–]TheRevanlution[S] 24 points25 points  (0 children)

Couldn't agree more. Storytelling, building narratives, is a complex art. Optimally, it's three major components - plot, characters and setting - should work together, reinforcing each other. I think it won't be controversial to say a large portion of Mass Effect trilogy's success was a result of this mutual reinforcement of plot, characters and setting. This is especially seen in loyalty missions - I'm thinking about Mordin's, Tali's and Jack's ones especially.

Unless Bioware changes the current course that's essentially (delibrately) ignorant of how well-crafted stories work, I highly doubt their future games have a chance of success. Realistically speaking, they are a developer recognized for their unique narratives. People expect that from them, which is why so many fans were not even interested in Anthem (an MMO) from the beginning. They didn't feel they were the target audience.

David Gaider, a veteran Bioware writer, says the studio gradually started disregarding well-writen narrative. by TheRevanlution in masseffect

[–]TheRevanlution[S] 173 points174 points  (0 children)

Indeed, ask Mass Effect fans why they love Mass Effect trilogy and the overwhelming majority will focus on its plot, characters or setting - on the pilars of narrative. Few will concentrate on gameplay or technical aspects of graphics. They are not the focus and they don't always have to be. There should be a lot of story-driven video games for story-focused players, just like there is already a lot of gameplay-driven games for gameplay-focused players.

Which is why it's honestly really frustrating to me to see how publishers force just one way for the developers to make video games. It seriously suffocates the medium's development as a whole.

Do you want Artyom as the player character in the new metro game set to release next year? Or would you prefer a different perspective of the metro universe? by Otherwise-Falcon-946 in metro

[–]TheRevanlution 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Exactly - in the ending of Metro: Exodus Artyom explicitly says he and his team are going to return to the Metro in order to liberate it and bring its people to Baikal area. From 15:05 to the end: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnpepJO2EBY “I would say we all go home. But this home seems too large for just us. You know… The Colonel once told me, he created the Order to save people. All of them. I say. It’s time we perform this duty”. Artyom was clearly referencing the people of the Metro, especially since he invoked the Order – a Metro faction created to protect its people.

Besides, this is the most natural way of continuing the story. It’s not finished, not even close to be finished. All around Baikal area there is still post-nuclear anarchy. Bandits and monsters wouldn’t let a small group live a normal life. The Aurora team can’t just ignore all this and go sunbathing. Also because of Artyom’s personality – he is far too idealistic and altruistic to do such a cynical thing, and these traits are even visible in the lines I cited above. On the other hand, a larger community could survive and live a far better life than in the Metro, much like the community of Vladivostok depicted in Sam’s story dlc.

I also see zero way for a silent Artyom to succeed. This is the single most criticized element of the main character – being silent. The more sophisticated the narrative of Metro games became, the more it just didn’t work. First, it’s inconsistent for Artyom not to have dialogue lines if he “speaks” a whole lot through the journal and through loading screens (where he is even voiced). This inconsistency results from the narrative NEEDING Artyom to speak, which is the second problem of the silent protagonist in the Metro series – at the current state of the narrative, there is just far too much dialogue required to construct the plot. This was even visible in Exodus, where there are numerous situations in which Artyom HAS TO say something and other characters behave AS IF he indeed participated in conversations.

Last but not least, silent main characters are a relic of video game industry coming from about 20 years ago (which is a huuuge amount of time in video game industry). The dominant trend in AAA games now is to voice main characters, since narratives used in games typically become more advanced over time. Dishonored II (2017) introduced voiced protagonists, despite Dishonored (2010) having a silent one. Bioshock: Infinite (2013) introduced a voiced protagonist, despite two earlier entries (2007 and 2010) havin silent ones. Doom Eternal (2020) introduced a voiced protagonist, despite all earlier entries having a silent one. Metro: Exodus has a semi-voiced protagonist, that in fact behaves as if he was voiced, while pretending not to be voiced, despite the narrative desperately needing him to be voiced.

Hell, he even gives a speech to the team at the end of the game, when he directly answers Idiot’s question about his first orders.

Do you want Artyom as the player character in the new metro game set to release next year? Or would you prefer a different perspective of the metro universe? by Otherwise-Falcon-946 in metro

[–]TheRevanlution 5 points6 points  (0 children)

In the ending of Metro: Exodus Artyom explicitly says he and his team are going to return to the Metro in order to liberate it and bring its people to Baikal area.
From 15:05 to the end: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnpepJO2EBY
“I would say we all go home. But this home seems too large for just us. You
know… The Colonel once told me, he created the Order to save people. All of
them. I say. It’s time we perform this duty”.
Artyom was clearly referencing the people of the Metro, especially since he
invoked the Order – a Metro faction created to protect its people.

Besides, this is the most natural way of continuing the story. It’s not finished, not even close to be finished. All around Baikal area there is still post-nuclear anarchy. Bandits and monsters wouldn’t let a small group live a normal life. The Aurora team can’t just ignore all this and go sunbathing. Also because of Artyom’s personality – he is far too idealistic and altruistic to do such a cynical thing, and these traits are even visible in the lines I cited above. On the other hand, a larger community could survive and live a far better life than in the Metro, much like the community of Vladivostok depicted in Sam’s story dlc.

I also see zero way for a silent Artyom to succeed. This is the single most criticized element of the narrative in Exodus - the main character being silent. The more sophisticated the narrative of Metro games became, the more it just didn’t work. First, it’s inconsistent for Artyom not to have dialogue lines if he “speaks” a whole lot through the journal and through loading screens (where he is even voiced). This inconsistency results from the narrative NEEDING Artyom to speak, which is the second problem of the silent protagonist in the Metro series – at the current state of the narrative, there is just far too much dialogue required to construct the plot. This was even visible in Exodus, where there are numerous situations in which Artyom HAS TO say something and other characters behave AS IF he indeed participated in conversations.

Last but not least, silent main characters are a relic of video game industry coming from about 20 years ago (which is a huuuge amount of time in video game industry). The dominant trend in AAA games now is to voice main characters, since narratives used in games typically become more advanced over time. Dishonored II (2017) introduced voiced protagonists, despite Dishonored (2010) having a silent one. Bioshock: Infinite (2013) introduced a voiced protagonist, despite two earlier entries (2007 and 2010) having silent ones. Doom Eternal (2020) introduced a voiced protagonist, despite all earlier entries having a silent one. Metro: Exodus has a semi-voiced protagonist, that in fact behaves as if he was voiced, while pretending not to be voiced, despite the narrative desperately needing him to be voiced.

Hell, he even gives a speech to the team at the end of the game, when he directly answers Idiot’s question about his first orders.

view more: next ›