That means they’re taking the time to think about it… but loot boxes will be in it, anyway.
Oh, man. After the latest Call of Duty reports? Wow. It’s a Battle Royale world now.
Ugh, glad Battlefield 1 and Battlefront 2 pretty much burned me out on multiplayer.
I really enjoy playing Fortnite. I don’t need every online multiplayer game to be Fortnite. Game companies are so stupid.
I will agree that the traditional multiplayer formula of games like Call of Duty, Battlefield, and their peers has grown stale, uninspired, and repetitive. That said, everyone rushing out Battle Royale clones will quickly run into the same tedium.
I wish more shooters were traveling off in creative tangents along the lines of Rainbow Six: Siege, Titanfall, or Hunt: Showdown. Truly offering fresh new ideas and gameplay verbs.
Never even heard of this one.
Man, I hear you. You could ad lib that for so many other genres.
“I really enjoy playing World of Warcraft. I don’t need every MMO to be World of Warcraft”
“I really enjoy League of Legends. I don’t need every game to be League of Legends”
“I really enjoy Overwatch. I don’t need every shooter to be Overwatch”
(EDIT: How could I forget about the industry shitting out a new Early Access survival clone every 2 months?)
And now, of course, the never-ending Clone Wars move to a new era.
I don’t mind borrowing fun concepts, but it would be nice if those concepts inspired their own creative pursuits instead of rushing to cash in on the latest hotness.
You forgot Ghost Recon Wildlands. I think the fact that you just named three and I added a fourth game released before or around PUBG that do different stuff shows there’s a lot more ways to make a shooter than just Battle Royale.
What the Battlefield people should be doubling down on is getting to 50v50 or more players in a much more pitched battle drawn along more realistic battle lines to claim victory points on a map.
I haven’t gotten around to playing that yet, but I have it installed right now, so soon hopefully. I imagine I will really enjoy it since the overall theme and Ghost Recon approach appeals to me and I think that Ubisoft have been knocking it out of the park lately with both game quality and long-term support.
The concept of a battle royale mode in a historical military setting feels kind of inappropriate.
But standard deathmatch with respawns feels appropriate? I think BR may trend to be more like a mode, like team deathmatch, than a game genre. So just like mp games may have deathmatch, control and VIP modes, they may also have a BR mode (with their own spin on it).
This is gonna alienate the large segment of Battlefield players who get all their enjoyment from whining about their teammates.
That was pretty cool. I remember that locked room on the map, it was quite prominent.
Well, I was gonna be interested, but then… Trevor Noah.
(makes sound of deflating tire)
The teaser for this include a scoreboard, and the scoreboard seems to have axis and allies symbols.
So it seems we go back at WWII.
I guess theres a entire generation of gamers now that is not tired of WW2 games.
We will go back to punch nazis. In the face. Forever.
I think BFV should have based on a imaginary world where WW2 has never ended, and after conquering berlin russia would have declared war to the allied. Give the game a mix of WW2 weapons and more modern weapons. Gigantic tanks. Snow. A bit of steampunk. Syberia trains. Tactical nukes. Nuclear Winter. That stuff. Going back to plain boring WW2 I think is a snorefest.
I don’t think I can play another multiplayer FPS without a whistle. :(
Gosh, even WW2-that-never-ended feels stale now. I think WW1 was the final frontier. I guess we have to accept that with both AAA shooters releasing every year, there isn’t a single setting they won’t exploit to the max.