EA stocks has fallen by almost 50% since E3 debacle and aren't stopping

Goose4291

Banned
You know what I find ironic? BF V is doing many changes to the gameplay fans have been asking for years. They made the game more complex, took away the noob crutches, made teamplay better. But now people are complaining about woman, chat cencors and muh liberal oppression. Gamers are a laughable customer group. They are so easily triggered. No wonder some EA guy said, what he said. He was just right.

The 'no wimmin' thing is getting a tad overblown, probably by EA themselves as its free hype and marketing, as well as gives them an excuse if they fail.

Most people I've seen and know have been more miffed along the lines of what I wrote in post 32.
 
The 'no wimmin' thing is getting a tad overblown, probably by EA themselves as its free hype and marketing, as well as gives them an excuse if they fail.

Most people I've seen and know have been more miffed along the lines of what I wrote in post 32.

I never heard them talking about BFV as a accurate image of WWII. DICE always said that they were not making history games but fun games in a certain context. People should have been upset about BF1 too? But they werent.

I couldnt see any woman with a prosthetic running around so far in online matches. It was a dumb move on their part to cater to the fortnite crowd but they removed it it seems.

Also your theory about EA pushing the woman narrative is quite ridicoulus.
 
Last edited:

Goose4291

Banned
I never heard them talking about BFV as a accurate image of WWII. DICE always said that they were not making history games but fun games in a certain context. People should have been upset about BF1 too? But they werent.

I couldnt see any woman with a prosthetic running around so far in online matches. It was a dumb move on their part to cater to the fortnite crowd but they removed it it seems.

Also your theory about EA pushing the woman narrative is quite ridicoulus.

First I heard about Battlefield 5 was someone I game with shoving an article under my nose about how they were aiming for the aforementioned gritty immersiveness while harping about 'going back to their roots'. Its why when I saw that trailer I just completely went 'naaah not for me.' and left it at that.

And I think you misunderstand what I mean regarding the whole press thing. What Im saying is that theyre more than happy with it and having the press cover it in detail because as we've seen with other similar arguments in the entertainment arts (looking at you, Ghostbusters, Oceans 13, etc) it makes for a great deflection reason for failure, i.e.

"The movie/tv series/game/book failed because of angry incel bigots, not because our product was poor."
 
Maybe the "more of the same" business model finally comes to an end.

Who needs another WW2 rehash?

Gaming since Wolfenstein and I don't care how good or real or immersive your WW2 fps is, I have had my fill in the 26 years since Wolf. I will never play one again. I feel the same way about fps in general and its no surprise stock is falling. Its time to move on and get creative again.
 
Those 2 games are like apples and oranges. Also this BF is the best since the early days. It has more depth, higher skill ceiling and much better teamplay then the last 3 entries. I say this as a BF player since 1942.


You must be the oldest here. ;)

BF2 FTW
 
Like BF1942 and the veitnam mod.
Last game I bought was bf2.
Hated it, I couldn't hit anything, even when the guy was right in front of me.
I couldn't buy a kill.
Never bothered with the series after that.
 
You know what I find ironic? BF V is doing many changes to the gameplay fans have been asking for years. They made the game more complex, took away the noob crutches, made teamplay better.

Uh, did they though? I mean for one thing, maps are still tiny compared to past games, especially non-Battlefield games. What "complexity" are you talking about specifically? You're saying everything got better but don't qualify any of these statements.

The fact of the matter is, maps are getting smaller and smaller, engagement distances get shorter and movement and everything is a fishbowl shooter nowadays. Gone are the days of games like Joint Ops where you could actually load 12 people AND two vehicles into a transport helicopter and fly them to a forward base to reinforce an assault. Gone are the days of 255 players on a single server on a single, huge map. Nowadays you gotta be happy if it's 32 vs 32.
 

Goose4291

Banned
Uh, did they though? I mean for one thing, maps are still tiny compared to past games, especially non-Battlefield games. What "complexity" are you talking about specifically? You're saying everything got better but don't qualify any of these statements.

The fact of the matter is, maps are getting smaller and smaller, engagement distances get shorter and movement and everything is a fishbowl shooter nowadays. Gone are the days of games like Joint Ops where you could actually load 12 people AND two vehicles into a transport helicopter and fly them to a forward base to reinforce an assault. Gone are the days of 255 players on a single server on a single, huge map. Nowadays you gotta be happy if it's 32 vs 32.

Toumal, I'd suggest either Post Scriptum or ArmA 3 in a week or two when the new official 'Warlords' multiplayer mode becomes available if thats what you're looking for :)
 
Those 2 games are like apples and oranges. Also this BF is the best since the early days. It has more depth, higher skill ceiling and much better teamplay then the last 3 entries. I say this as a BF player since 1942.

BF 1942 was the best, last and only one I played with fervor, the rest have been pale shadows. OH DAI was the best of that series.
 
BF 1942 was the best, last and only one I played with fervor, the rest have been pale shadows. OH DAI was the best of that series.
i spent 10 years modding BF2, so i definitely got my money's worth from that game... in truth i still haven't completely finished with it, i still have a few half-complete models i want to put into the game - but i wish that some of the features that BFV and BF1942 had weren't removed from BF2 (bot landing zones for one example, plus a whole bunch of ai behaviours that got scrapped. plenty of other stuff)

BF2 marked the end of the series 'reactive' bots, from then on (i.e. from BF-BC2) they were replaced with the much cheaper 'scripted' type - a reactive bot can be dropped anywhere in a level and he will know how to navigate and form a plan, whereas a scripted bot can only operate in a specific area and will be very predictable - with scripted bots it's like "ok, there's usually a bot hiding behind that wall, if i RPG the ground i should be able to splash him to death... got him... ok, normally another bot behind that shed... ok, he's dead, who's next..." - very dull gameplay. with the reactive type they appeared a bit dumber overall, but could turn up anywhere at any time, and made for a much more dynamic and interesting game

no idea what oh dai is, google doesn't show anything relevant?
 
Is this the one where they tried to hype their game as a immersive, gritty WWII shooter (like Post Scriptum) and gave us amputee women snipers with robot arms and samurai sword carrying Bren gunners at Arnhem instead, and wondered why people couldn't seem to equate the marketing to what they saw?

Not sure, I saw a lot of "GRR SJW's" and "GRR ALT RIGHT" and stopped reading without paying attention to the details.

I'm sick of all that cobblers, they are all just looking for excuses to fall out with each other.
 
Uh, did they though? I mean for one thing, maps are still tiny compared to past games, especially non-Battlefield games. What "complexity" are you talking about specifically? You're saying everything got better but don't qualify any of these statements.

The fact of the matter is, maps are getting smaller and smaller, engagement distances get shorter and movement and everything is a fishbowl shooter nowadays. Gone are the days of games like Joint Ops where you could actually load 12 people AND two vehicles into a transport helicopter and fly them to a forward base to reinforce an assault. Gone are the days of 255 players on a single server on a single, huge map. Nowadays you gotta be happy if it's 32 vs 32.

BF1 had maps with a lot of funneling tons of players into small alleys. In BFV the maps are very open, you can get flanked from pretty much anywhere. Gunplay has been derandomized and the crosshair now moves with the recoil correctly. Gone are days of endless autoheal too. Vehicles need to rearm at base and cant just spam their cannons. Everyone can now fortify positions with sandbags and supply stations must be built by the teams. Add no more 3d spotting. But hey you could have known all of this, if you were really interested in it.

Regarding your 255 players count: MAG tried it on ps3 some years, more players just doesnt equate more fun. You ll need to balance all the gadgets and tools around zerging with 255. Most of the other players wont be noticed by you.
 
Last edited:
Toumal, I'd suggest either Post Scriptum or ArmA 3 in a week or two when the new official 'Warlords' multiplayer mode becomes available if thats what you're looking for :)

Well SQUAD has been in early access since a few years and is doing exactly, what you guys seem to be looking for. Guess what? SQUAD is a niche game, which requires some degree in commanding real troops to have fun. Everyone is talking about how cool it would be to be in a real battle but while playing SQUAD you ll quickly realize how stessful this is and keep switching back to fun games like CoD or BF. The irony.

[video=youtube_share;PUSU40ytJks]https://youtu.be/PUSU40ytJks[/video]
 

Goose4291

Banned
Not sure, I saw a lot of "GRR SJW's" and "GRR ALT RIGHT" and stopped reading without paying attention to the details.

I'm sick of all that cobblers, they are all just looking for excuses to fall out with each other.

Yep, the worst thing is how the media love to hype it up because they know its going to be pure clickbait to anyone of either persuasion.

Tina Fey's character in her current show 'Great News' kind of sums it up for me, with how she justifies changing the traditional news shows she's producing into a more modern one with 'experts' screaming at each other across the table

"With America on the verge of eating itself alive, people are finally watching cable news again."

Well SQUAD has been in early access since a few years and is doing exactly, what you guys seem to be looking for. Guess what? SQUAD is a niche game, which requires some degree in commanding real troops to have fun. Everyone is talking about how cool it would be to be in a real battle but while playing SQUAD you ll quickly realize how stessful this is and keep switching back to fun games like CoD or BF. The irony.

I'm going to start by saying that Toumal was looking for something with larger areas for you to fight over, where you can use terrain to your advantage.

Secondly, I'm going to just highlight that the reason Squad is like that (and different from the ones I suggested) is that the whole focus of Squad is on the Team Leader, whereas with those others I listed as suggestions to Toumal, while they can help give you the edge, they're not as heavily reliant on them.

Thirdly, as someone who's real life job involves actually having rounds being lobbed back at me uprange, please don't try to argue that somehow e-NCOing in a computer game is somehow 'stressful' or any such nonsense. It cheapens the discussion.
 
Planetside 1 had 399 players per continent. I argue the most advanced FPS to this very day. It had it all shame the Devs were the gaps between. Well you know.
 
Planetside 1 had 399 players per continent. I argue the most advanced FPS to this very day. It had it all shame the Devs were the gaps between. Well you know.

Was it any less in PS2? Can't remember the numbers but those 3-ways at The Crown used to be savage.
 
Whats the issue here? Dont you people have phones???


I gotta agree, the D3 fan crowd probably has not as much impact as it thinks it has but Blizzard could ve handled this better....MUCH better in fact. Instead they were confrontational and they are getting the bill for it. The internet and YT specifically were full of torches-and-pitchforks pieces for days afterwards painting a very negative image. I am sure a lot of people not much vested in Diablo were kinda triggered by this biased reporting.

The stock market simply reacts to insecurities when it comes to the cash cows (gamers) which are currently up in arms.

Personally I have given up on Blizzard a loooong time ago. I fell for their "we are gamers too" crap when I was younger and didnt know much but they are a full blown corporate company by now and they just produce the tools to make what they really are after. Add the fact that it has been decades since Blizzard has had an original idea of their own....yeah, the company I was a fan of 20 years ago is dead.

D3 was a good experience, but eventully very short-lived. I still dont regret purchasing it, it has been a few hundred hours of fun (and grind....) but the way Blizzard games have gone I dont put much hope into Diablo: Immortal, its going to be a typical F2P game and those bore me to tears after minutes. In the end...gamers are the lifeblood of video game companies. All the profit is based on gamers good-will and pockets. Might not be the best idea to flip em the bird or outright tell folks "we dont care what you think, we do what we want and you ll like it". The possible fall-out is something I follow with interest, mostly to see how the companies involved handle this.

After-interviews were revealing some fascinating things. Like Blizzard has anticipated negative reactions, just not to this extent. I mean we all know that companies dont really give a flip about gamers and/or good video games. They do what they have to do in order to get more mulah. And in typical Blizzard fashion they go on to copy yet another existing idea, probably better then the original and I have no doubt that the resulting product will be of high quality...it just wont be anything new or innovative because Blizz simply doesnt do those anymore. But hearing them admitting to this "we dont give a crap and we do what gives us the most money /duh" so openly is a bit shocking. I was thinking about what they could ve done instead and I didnt come up with a good answer.

After the recent Guild Wars 2 spectacle this will only add to the opinion that gamers have power if you poke em enough. Immediately backpaddling or apologizing could grant em the illusion of having more then they actually do have at which point it could be abused to try to "push" game companies around.

It seems that Blizzard is mostly trying to put a lid on things and keep silent. Apart from that hilarious concession of course.

Anyway, this will cost Blizzard a lot of nerves and maybe money, thats something they actually understand, gamers feelings be damned. Might be a good "slap" on the wrists to show video game producers that they cant be too greedy in what they do (god knows they ve been subtle long enough)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom