After watching their EA's Battlefield 4 presentation on E3 2013 I had some mixed reaction's seeing my personal best franchise (Battlefield). Many of you may not agree with my argumments, but these are my opinions and you guys can comment in what you think that I was misleading or if I am wrong and why, just don't spam the comment section with immature comments...
Battlefield 4 is clearly a beautiful game, the visual's and textures are sharp and clean but something is lacking here... innovation. Battlefield 3 was powered by Frostbite Engine 2 and it was a beautiful game, filled with some high resolution and quality textures/lighting and also some sweet physics. At every convention of 2011, the most impressive feature of Battlefield 3 was it's monster game engine, The Frostbite 2. There were a lot of tech demo's for this engine and now on Battlefield 4's Frostbite Engine 3 I saw no tech demo's... I think that this is not an bad thing and some people need to calm down on saying that Battlefield 4 technology is exactly the same like Battlefield 3. I'm not here deffending Battlefield 4 because some thing'ss that people say are right. While Frostbite Engine 2 was an huge step forward to Next Gen, FrostBite Engine 3 is more like an update on some specific parts, re-using some old model's. This is explained with the short time of two years that Dice had to make the game, plus the engine. I can't deny that there is a lot of improvement to the physics, lighting, textures, destruction and the overall effects, but like I said, it's only an improvement and not that much of innovation. So... does this engine deserved to be called FrostBite Engine 3? I really don't know, I need to see an Tech Demo and take all my doubts away (I have a lot of them).
Now let's talk about the Gameplay. From what I saw at the E3 presentation, the gameplay felt like the same from Battlefield 3, and I am not talking about that little staged presentation at the EA conference, I am talking about normal people playing the game. I have been playing Battlefield since Battlefield 1942 and I have been experiencing the evolution and transformation of this franchise for a lot of years. Some friends of mine disagree with my Battlefield 3 review here on Gamespot, saying that the score was to high... I don't agree with them, Battlefield 3 was special and very different/fresh from the previous tittle (Bad Company 2). Battlefield 4 did not quite have the same feeling... There are a lot of re-used model's and the gameplay seems to be a bit simillar to Battlefield 3. But I need to address some positive points on the gameplay in Battlefield 4, the destruction feel's way more realistic and tactical, there is the addition of naval combat, there are new vehicles, new weapons and new game mechanics. I think that Dice is really trying to pull up the Hard Core fans of the franchise by digging out some old gameplay mechanics, like the Commander Mode. Dice is trying really hard to bring up some old and memorable nostalgia from Battlefield 2. Like I said, the Commander Mode returns in Battlefield 4, but this one might turn out good or horrible. From what I saw, it might be awsome. But again, Dice has shown that like Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4 won't support any type of Mod's created by the comunity... Dice is really forggeting Project Reality, wich is sad... Another downside from this Battlefield are those day one DLC's and all those Premium player's bonus.
Battlefield 4 has a lot of positive things supporting it's success, but will it be good? We need to wait and found out when the game is released.
So... today I was cleaning my collection of retail game copies that I own and I started thinking in an common problem for (almost) any gamer out there, the DLC's. I have a lot of retail games copies, some very old and other's more recent and the is one thing that I can say whithout any problem, I miss those old days when I used to buy 100% complete games, without any day one DLC's...
But is this DLC marketing strategy killing the video game industry? Well... it is. These so called DLC's are actually not only killing the video game industry, but at the same time, disrespecting the gamer's. Many people deffend that DLC's are nothing more than expansions to the game that you buy, well... this is true and no gamer can't deny this, big example of that are the Skyrim DLC's. Skyrim is not the only game that has some decent DLC's, I also remmeber Red Dead Redmption, Fallout 3 and New Vegas and Battlefield Bad Comapny 2 Vietnam. Overall, almost 35% of the DLC's allready released where good and the price was justified with the content delivered. And here is the problem, more precisely, the other 65% of the DLC's. Do you people remember the "Mass Effect 3 Day One DLC Scandal"? The "Street Fighter X Tekken DLC Probelm"? Well, many of you haven't heard of these, but the thing is that there was already locked DLC's implemented on the Disk... the consumer buys the retail copy for 60 and it's incomplete, with locked content that you need to pay later... Is this what the consumer deserves after paying 60????
Street Fighter x Tekken was well received by critics, who complimented the roster and deep game mechanics. In addition, Capcom's release of DLC's for the game was met with high criticism from the gamer's and game critics when it was revealed that the company was charging for access to characters (12 Extra Characters) that were already on the game disc. This is the response from Capcom:
"In a statement on the Capcom Unity blog, the publisher responded to outcry over the decision, saying the move was made to save hard drive space and to "ensure for a smooth transition" when the DLC becomes available."
Well, this is not an smart answer to the consumer... We are not that much dumb Capcom, this was an marketing campaign, nothing more. The consumer paid 85% of an game at full price, if he want's the rest, he needs to pay for it...
I might be a little bad for Capcom, but the truth is that this company has made some great games that I really enjoyed and sometimes I still play them. Capcom has fall, but I think that they already learned from their mistakes.
Capcom isn't the only company doing this type of marketing, almost every other company does it. And as an consumer I must say that if this type of gaming capitalism is not good for the games final quality and I will probably stop buying retail games at full price. It's an waste of money and a big example of that is Battlefield 3. The unbalanced DLC's (that clearly benefit the players who pay more) and that Premium joke made me almost turn off from the game. They are using the consumer dedication and addiction into extra profit. I still remmember those old Battlefield 2 expansions that I paid for the content and the gameplay experience wasn't unbalanced... Old times...
And now it comes the funny part, the companies can defend themselves by saying that no one is forced to buy these DLC's, but in the end, if you want to get the full experience, you need to pay more...
Im not saying that DLC is overall a bad thing, like I said before, there are some amazing DLC's out there that are worth the money because of their content. The thing that I don't like is the direction that the companies are heading to, they are treating the consumers like puppets. I agree with those DLC's that bring new content and add more replayability to the game, and the timing of these DLC's is also very important. I disagree with those day one DLC's that are very important to the game story (that could had been already implemented in the retail version, the blocked DLC's already inside the retail copies) and those multiplayer DLC's that restrain the gamer's and unbalance the gameplay. So the companies allready made a lot of tricks with their consumer's, so whats next? An 60 game with micro-transitions... wait, Dead Space 3 and somehow Assassins Creed 3 allready made that...
This is my first blog ever that I made for gamespot, thanks for reading and sorry for some error's and comment bellow in what you think of todays business in the Video Games Industy.