I don't buy this.
The size of the maps was very much a design decision, not a technical one.
Precisely. Team shooters have a very strong ratio of map size to tactical play. Pack the guys into a 20x20 map and there ARE no tactics. Spread them out over a kilometer and NOW you have a game.
But the speed of the game is what they're thinking about. Back in the "good old days" you put the clock on 10 minutes for Siege and you thought about what you were doing. Gee, just like a real person might do. I guess today it's all about compressed action. Well, not on BF3.
IMO the amount of Intel and nade spam must have been ridiculous with 8v8 on these small maps so they scaled it back. Hence the "tactical flavor" (or whatever it was) comment from the devs. Tactical flavor is just a cover for " we made the maps too small and now we have to scale the player count back so the gameplay doesn't get too spammy."
Ironically, giving us bigger maps would have solved so many of the problems beta-testers were having with this game. Constant Intel, Spawn Camping, Frag + Hack + UAV spamming, ARs killing snipers...
Tbh I consider all that a learning curve..... like tactically showing your opponents your tactics, then literally outshooting them when they have an advantage. At the sametime while a scout sneaks behind them and messes them up.
:S meh, i had fun playing this game, especially when I was completely detected by uavs and sensor nades. It's interesting to see the "hunters" vs the ones who sit and wait when they know where you are. Bigger maps would have only had the same problems, but we wouldnt have the opportunity to refine our "ways" of dealing with the situation. For all the gaming faults people list, if you take it as a gameing standard and just go with it, you have a chance to learn how to manipulate any situation in your favor. Bigger maps to me would have only lowered the amount of complaints, not the complaints themselves. Atleast in my opinon... All the sensor spaz people hate.. well it makes sense. The counters are a bit ****, but if you get past that.... its a completely honest gameplay experience knowing where your enemy is behind walls, especially when they know where you are. It's even more intense when they know where you are but you don't them. But yeah.. backtracking I suppose all of that pisses new gamers off because they get mowed down far to fast. What can you do... You appease the new commers, and hope that the rest of the players continue to evolve their gameplay styles.
Bigger maps isn't the issue, it just masks issues. Atleast with small maps you get to see tight combat situations with this tech in the game. I think people miss the point or something.. the in your face gaming style isn't the primary problem. It just forces you to adapt and be honest with .... nm. I found the intel fun even when i was getting owned. And the only intel I ever aquire on my own is rom hacks or cameras. I'd rather it wasn't there.. but I enjoy the fact that there's a game where I can have this destructive feature involved. Forces you/squad to adjust your positioning and tactics.. I imagine in the later stages teams will learn to "confuse" and disorientate the opposeing teams by using teammembers as decoys if they are being seen through the walls.
It's not going to change.. so evolve it. Idk.. just my opinon
Well, im spinning it and literally forcing myself to adapt to the way they've made this game. The whole concept and execution of this game doesn't quite make sense to me tbh. Not yet, so im hoping that as people refine their own ways of playing, things will start to develop. Right now if you took the title ghost recon out of it id be a bit hazey in identifying anything GR about this game minus what the cloak from the scout.
And I guess in all honesty this isn't an evolution of the game. It's more a side step in the current game developments to add more direct vision of what other players are doing. If you took the seeing through wall aspect.. it's quite limited. Good, but it doesn't push any envolopes. It seems more like a cluster of ideas and some cosmetic execution to older game styles all merged into one.
Then again, there is defiantly alot about this game I don't know about so whose to say this game isn't setting some standards in some areas.
Anyhow, change for change sakes is stupid. Add and evolve is how I think. Add new things, evolve the old so people get a fresh new view of their old loved aspects of gameplay. Atleast.. that's how it should be. But like most things, they give you something nice, then they draw it back a little. Or try to change it fundamentally, when they actually had it pretty decent to begin with. If we started with GR 1, kept the core aspects of it alive, and modified it up with what the core developers wanted, and what a general consensus of fans wanted, (with progressive updates from the devs so we could see it in the works)... youd have one amazing game. Because people would know it more or less in and out to some degree before it's release and take responsibility if something turns out to be ****. Which would allow the devs to ... Change it. With that magical cloud system they keep emphasising. .. Oh meh. What can you do.. no one talks anymore, or maybe no one did?
Hopefully they'll have better luck than SOCOM did trying to do the exact same thing.
But it's rather too late for us. Unless they invent a map stretcher, this definitive aspect of the game, the speed of play, is set in stone AND it precludes 8v8, at which point even our dear, misguided developers concede there's too much action.
Originally Posted by Gagtag1
.. the in your face gaming style isn't the primary problem
I think the style IS the "problem". I don't think "Ghost" and "in your face gaming style" belong in the same sentence. It's a virtual sacrilege. But that's just me. Imma call this game GINO, Ghost In Name Only.
If you DO prefer that gaming style, awesome - I'll be forced to relinquish my memories of what Ghost formerly meant - stealth and tactics - and turn it over to this new "in your face" style. But honestly, doesn't the very NAME Ghost mean the opposite of flying Intel? I mean on campaign mode where YOU have the UAV and some poor 3rd world dirt farmer with an AK47 is your prey, then yeah, Ghost still applies. But when two "Ghost" teams go up against each other then stealth simply evaporates. Even the invisi-armor is pretty easy to see from the UAV. (and full disclosure, I fly that sucker ALL the time, because you have to employ all the cheap tactics simply to be competitive. However, with a customized room.... all people want is freedom, right?)
No no no.. but yes at the sametime. You have to imagine this game as being 1/3 of what a real GR game would be like. This game at best represents what happens when two stealthy squads meet eachother in a small confined area, and know exactly where each player is due to the "development" and ease of access of detection tech that both sides have access to. It's a prelude to the overal GR experience. The in your face aspect, will always happen. I just mean, that particular aspect isn't the problem, the execution and completely forcing players to play this gamestyle is the problem. There's no balance for anything that takes time unless you really make it happen. Which fits into in your face confrontations. ... idk how to explain my point of view on this. But regardless, I do get what you mean by it being a problem. I just see this style of gameplay being part of a larger better GR experience, where patience and stealth mixed with large complex multileveled maps combine to give players multipul options. One being, in your face firefights that house a degree of tactical control. I defiantly don't enjoy having to adapt 10 times in 20 seconds because so much crap is going off.. but I do appricate it to some degree I guess.