Battlefield heroes

ray245 · Post by **ray245** » 2008-03-03 11:07pm

And it free!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYQP-uBijWg

Darksider · Post by **Darksider** » 2008-03-03 11:14pm

EA making seemingly entertaining free game.

Brain cannot process information..... overloading.......

*head explodes*

Losonti Tokash · Post by **Losonti Tokash** » 2008-03-03 11:28pm

Holy shit this looks to be awesome. Although the theme music constantly reminds me of the MGS theme.

Post by **weemadando** » 2008-03-03 11:59pm

I am sold on the idea already. Reports from GFW crew (1up.com) are good.

And lets face it, it's free.

And to anyone who shouts: "They've ripped of TF2!", remember kids - the TF2 visual design wasn't unveiled that long ago and this was in production at the same time.

It's all a way of making the game more accessible.

Covenant · Post by **Covenant** » 2008-03-04 12:28am

I don't care if they rip off TF2 anyway. I think TF2 looks great and I'd love to see more people emulate it's design. This game looks like it could either be a lousy shooter, or a lot of fun. I'm hoping for lot of fun!

Executor32 · Post by **Executor32** » 2008-03-04 12:42am

I like how they've added seat positions on the aircraft wings. It was always such a pain in the ass to stay on them in BF1942.

wautd · Post by **wautd** » 2008-03-04 03:45am

Looks like fun and free. That dynamic campaign map sounds interesting

Koolaidkirby · Post by **Koolaidkirby** » 2008-03-04 04:41am

I especially like the bit about the 15 year old...

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2008-03-04 10:27am

I don't think it's a TF2 ripoff - yeah, it's cartoony, but it's got its own flavor.

I'll definitely be trying it out.

Chris OFarrell · Post by **Chris OFarrell** » 2008-03-05 07:51pm

Its like Codename Eagle PT II, I'm SO in for this.

*Codename Eagle being the father of Battlefield 1942, much as Dune II was the father of C&C.

Cheese FTW!

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2008-03-05 07:57pm

Chris OFarrell wrote:Its like Codename Eagle PT II, I'm SO in for this.

Why didn't you say so!

The art style looks more BWii than TF2, but frankly the idea of a single game claiming ownership of an entire art style is fucking retarded.

Havok · Post by **Havok** » 2008-03-05 08:05pm

Hey those guys were sitting on the WINGS!!! That's not realistic! This game sucks!

Hell, I might even play that.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2008-03-05 08:29pm

FINALLY SOME FOOTAGE! I've been following the game for a while.

This game could be very important for the industry. It's got decent production values, ad-supported, but free.

So far, games that use advertising use it IN ADDITION. The game still costs $50, but they toss ads on billboards and get extra money off of it. If my games are going to have ads, I'd like them for less money, thank you very much.

If this game does very well, it'll encourage more developers to release ad-supported games for cheap or for free. This, I like. I don't care if there's a Coca-cola on the loading screen if I get the game for 50% off or free!

Hence, assuming the game isn't absolute crap, we should all download this after release.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2008-03-05 08:33pm

God not more 'important for the industry' claptrap. Nobody cares. We just want to play an over-the-top game for the week or two it takes to be totally ruined by idiots due to the low entry requirements.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2008-03-05 09:06pm

Stark wrote:God not more 'important for the industry' claptrap. Nobody cares. We just want to play an over-the-top game for the week or two it takes to be totally ruined by idiots due to the low entry requirements.

Nice way to dismiss it.

Most of the gaming industry has viewed ads as a way to simply increase revenue in addition to full retail price, which is silly. I think it's fair to demand either no ads or a lower retail price.

If a decent game does come out following this model, then it's good to support said game to deliver the message to publishers.

The only other company that has done this so far has been Ubisoft, but even then it was never new releases, just old games like Splinter Cell being re-released free with ads.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2008-03-05 09:16pm

Go fuck yourself, you little prat. I'm not 'dismissing' anything but your claims of significance for the game or it's model. I love how you responded so aptly to the argument that a free multiplayer game is going to fill up with idiots even faster than a paid game, for obvious reasons of freeness, and that moderation will only increase the costs for the publisher.

The idea that the population of SDN is in any way significant to the doubtless millions of people who will download this game is ridiculous. Being free and having 'Battlefield' in the name it's going to be popular regardless of quality.

People play Rappelz, after all.

CaptHawkeye · Post by **CaptHawkeye** » 2008-03-05 09:30pm

Praxis wrote: The only other company that has done this so far has been Ubisoft, but even then it was never new releases, just old games like Splinter Cell being re-released free with ads.

I take it you've never heard of America's Army?

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2008-03-05 09:37pm

CaptHawkeye wrote:
Praxis wrote: The only other company that has done this so far has been Ubisoft, but even then it was never new releases, just old games like Splinter Cell being re-released free with ads.
I take it you've never heard of America's Army?

*facepalm*

Forgot that one. But it's not really ad-supported, is it? I was under the impression it was completely free because it was a nice bit of propoganda.

I love how you responded so aptly to the argument that a free multiplayer game is going to fill up with idiots even faster than a paid game, for obvious reasons of freeness, and that moderation will only increase the costs for the publisher.

We'll see- the trailer implies that they have something in mind to avoid the "getting killed by a 15-year-old that plays the game constantly and cusses at you". I'll wait to see the final product before judging the game itself, but the product model is something that I've been waiting to see hit mainstream for some time.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2008-03-05 09:42pm

I applaud the decision to stick to a relatively 'simple' approach (ie, it seems they have 1 gamemode, 3 classes, 3 vehicles etc) instead of the 'more features' approach of modern games. It keeps costs down, lowers barriers to entry for new players, and puts the focus on the over-the-top shit instead of 'class balance'. People will still take it too seriously, play all day, and all the other problems popular shooters have, though, so I'll be interested to see how these ideas they have pan out.

It'd be great to see more games in between popcap/XBL-level stuff and top-production value games emerging for free, but this experiment won't really prove anything due to the huge developer and known brand.

CaptHawkeye · Post by **CaptHawkeye** » 2008-03-05 09:44pm

Praxis wrote: *facepalm*

Forgot that one. But it's not really ad-supported, is it? I was under the impression it was completely free because it was a nice bit of propoganda.

Hence, it was ad supported.

loomer · Post by **loomer** » 2008-03-05 10:51pm

America's Army isn't ad-supported. It IS the ad.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2008-03-05 11:04pm

CaptHawkeye wrote:
Praxis wrote: *facepalm*

Forgot that one. But it's not really ad-supported, is it? I was under the impression it was completely free because it was a nice bit of propoganda.
Hence, it was ad supported.

The term ad-supported means that the game made or attempted to make a profit off of the advertising used in the game. The game was non-profit. As loomer said, the game IS the ad.

It'd be great to see more games in between popcap/XBL-level stuff and top-production value games emerging for free, but this experiment won't really prove anything due to the huge developer and known brand.

At the very least maybe it'll encourage people to stop buying the Popcap crap. Nothing against casual games, but Popcap monopolizes the market on PCs and floods it with nearly-identical puzzle games, preventing smaller developers from competing.

People will still take it too seriously, play all day, and all the other problems popular shooters have, though, so I'll be interested to see how these ideas they have pan out.

I'm curious if the game will have voice chat. I'll take a lot of heat for this as I'm sure people will STRONGLY disagree, but I actually really dislike voice chat. Text chat makes it much easier to ignore people who make a problem of themselves, and you don't hear the nasally voices.

Losonti Tokash · Post by **Losonti Tokash** » 2008-03-05 11:09pm

Praxis wrote:
CaptHawkeye wrote:
Praxis wrote: The only other company that has done this so far has been Ubisoft, but even then it was never new releases, just old games like Splinter Cell being re-released free with ads.
I take it you've never heard of America's Army?
*facepalm*

Forgot that one. But it's not really ad-supported, is it? I was under the impression it was completely free because it was a nice bit of propoganda.

The console versions run full price, strangely enough.

I'll take a lot of heat for this as I'm sure people will STRONGLY disagree, but I actually really dislike voice chat. Text chat makes it much easier to ignore people who make a problem of themselves, and you don't hear the nasally voices.

Are you familiar with the concept of an "ignore" function?

Post by **weemadando** » 2008-03-06 12:12am

Codename Eagle = one of the best goddamn games EVER. Except for the horrific bugs.

Just putting it out there.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2008-03-06 12:38am

weemadando wrote:Codename Eagle = one of the best goddamn games EVER. Except for the horrific bugs.

Just putting it out there.

You are absolutely right my good man. If this is anything like CE, it'll be awesome. Who doesn't love using motorbikes as unguided rockets and landing biplanes on traintracks?

If they ever fixed the fucking thing it would've been awesome. But they made 1942 instead...