Battlefield bad company 2

GhostMjr · December 21, 2009, 04:46:30 PM

So with Arma 2 successfully being adopted is there scope for more games in the community.

Well i'd hope so

What i'd like to look at next would be battlefield 2 bad company (tipped for a 5 march 2010 release date). If a beta comes out fingers crossed we can get a server client without having to pay for a ranked server.

So "if there is one" we can jump straight in as long as the keys do not require fileplanet accounts or something along those lines.

Or maybe we could wait for the full blown game what is your reaction?

There has been a ps3 beta out and is due to close this side of xmas (i think) with a pc beta being tipped for early january like with bf2 or at least a demo.

We expect more of same gameplay with dedi server support but confirmed "limited or no mod tools".

So we willing to give it a try in beta or shall we wait for a free demo or jump straight in the deep end with the game?

Personally trying anything free has to be a good thing so maybe the beta is a perfect start to see if we like it and whether its our type of game

OldBloke · December 21, 2009, 04:50:28 PM

Is this a FPS?

GhostMjr · December 21, 2009, 05:21:58 PM

Yes its the new version of battlefield 2.

The "new edition" as it were and has been confirmed as an FPS

OldBloke · December 21, 2009, 05:34:44 PM

Quote from: GhostMjr;299784Yes its the new version of battlefield 2.

The "new edition" as it were and has been confirmed as an FPS

In that case apply the 'Oldbloke's Simplified FPS Box-ticking Exercise'

1. Teamwork/Objective based gameplay
2. Minimum 4v4 or 6 person co-op
3. Dedicated servers

Any new FPS *must* tick all three boxes before even being considered for more in-depth analysis. The info about dedi servers might not be available at an early stage so you might need to be a bit flexible with that one.

TeaLeaf · February 02, 2010, 06:59:33 PM

Just to reiterate things GM as it looks like the market is moving a little away from dedicated servers, so we need to keep up with the times too. If a game plays well, seems to tick everything we want and only fails on the 'dedicated server' front then we still want to know about it.

I'd suggest that we continue to monitor the beta and aim to make a decision by 20th February or the end of the beta, whichever comes first. We can then assess and take some decisions as to how to proceed. That will leave us a minimum of 2 weeks until the game goes Live on 5th March.

GhostMjr · February 03, 2010, 09:56:04 PM

Quote from: TeaLeaf;303193Just to reiterate things GM as it looks like the market is moving a little away from dedicated servers, so we need to keep up with the times too. If a game plays well, seems to tick everything we want and only fails on the 'dedicated server' front then we still want to know about it.

I'd suggest that we continue to monitor the beta and aim to make a decision by 20th February or the end of the beta, whichever comes first. We can then assess and take some decisions as to how to proceed. That will leave us a minimum of 2 weeks until the game goes Live on 5th March.

Sounds fine to me.

Its a shame we can't establish for certain the gold version will not contain a non partner support which is both frustrating and a bit of a let down.

However with what we have been presented with so far i would agree that 20th February would be a good date to decide whether we do or do not continue with it.

On the flip side are there any similar games that are coming out like this?

I honestly can't point a finger at that many this year anyway so could we put cs to rest and take this on as a interim game until the next big thing?

T-bag and i spoke about this as a possible idea but would you prefer games with a substantial longevity rather than a stop gap solution as server numbers apart from cod are tailing off

. Arma is drawing some players but i haven't seen many cs or lfd games apart from the odd wednesday here and there.

I suppose we have to look at it in the way that few people are in the situation we are in.

Having top of the line kit with no need for a trusted server to host their server on in combination with a good and reliable hosting company.

This might be unfortunately as you say the way the market is going.

TeaLeaf · February 04, 2010, 10:05:51 AM

Think we're already looking at that situation GM, hence the change in stance re-iterated above. The market has not yet moved that way though so we still have plenty for our own horse power to do. We'll review later in the month and see what we can do.

TeaLeaf · February 14, 2010, 10:13:10 PM

Decision time in next 6 days. How are people feeling about support levels in the community and whether or not we like the game? It seems fairly positive from my point of view?

GhostMjr · February 14, 2010, 10:49:19 PM

Overall adoption levels are slow but steady.

We have around 8 adopters of the beta with around 7 solid steam purchasers.

I have led a couple of 2-3 hour sessions and it does work well.

It's a shame we can't try out anymore of the gameplay mechanics other than that in the beta such as different playing styles and the like to give it more of a hands on review.

Users seem to be playing on their own and not collectively getting a game going with other community users but when we have got a game and sorted out a squad its like stepping back to the days of bf2.

As t-bag pointed out in the public thread i decided to use teamspeak as a platform to get things going as in games comms don't really seem to work well.

I haven't heard any public players who we have met using in game comms so not too sure on how we could promote the community ethos of teamplay without using in game comms as using using teamspeak would not get users to notice us and want to check out our web page and community.

Overall, as this is the first big project for the gaming development section i am naturally hesitant as we haven't had any games graduate through it so far from start to finish. Basically i don't want to throw it in the keep net too soon when we need a couple more sessions to try it out.

I agree we need to come to a conclusion but with the game being released in early march and the beta running until at least late february i think we should hold on let things gather pace and come back to what we want to do in a couple of weeks.

It has great potential don't get me wrong but with only 8 players and with aion only being adopted for a short time we need to be certain the games we adopt have a solid fan base but also a following for it in the community which is just getting off the ground.

To summarise we are getting there but next weekend for a definite yes or no is too early in my opinion.

Blunt · February 14, 2010, 11:23:39 PM

Don't forget there are people who have bought the game and didn't get the beta option (me).
I'm sure the base is gonna be much more than 8-10 players.
when the game is released we will probably have a lot more who will buy it.

TeaLeaf · February 15, 2010, 07:56:13 AM

The reason for setting a deadline for a decision that was 2 weeks before launch date was to allow us, if the view was that we should support it, sufficient time to organise an external paid for server, learn the config system used by the provider and get sufficient pre-launch facilities out to members to allow more to purchase & download etc the game.

So, my 2 cents is that we ought to know by the 20th. The date itself is not mission critical, but let's be honest, 2 weeks before launch there will be a warehouse filled with BBC2 boxes containing Gold CDs. so the coding and major bug fixing must already be done.

The real issue is the lead time we give ourselves to organise & launch our own server so that we give access to not just dMw members, but also people who are not (yet) dMw members. We want people to be able to find us to increase our pool of players and for that it is important we are there on launch day with a dMw-branded server if we run with BBC2.