This is coming out on Thursday and it's free

http://www.videogamer.com/news/05-08-2008-9004.aspx

So.... where's the deathmatch?

What about Team Deathmatch?

The reason I sold bad company wasn't because it was a bad multiplayer experience, but it just wasn't complete either.

I would have kept the game and raved about it, but the simple fact is that I don't want to play the same game mode for over a month until they can release a new one, and I don't want to always be playing a domination/capture the fort style match.

you sold it?? I will get live soon

Yeah. It didn't fulfill my FPS addiction. I'm so bored with the genre right now that I've spent the last two weeks doing headshot challenges.

They really need to release a new map-pack, or weapon pack... something for that game.

Oh, Silent, dude. I'll have a PS3 within two months. Your call on BiA multiplayer (do you have a headset for PS3?) choice.

yes i have, ps3 is going to be sent away for repairs soon [ethernet port broken, controllers wont connect] so it really depends on which version is best, altough i do perfer to buy ps3 multiplatform... I dont want to be sending away the 360 now...

So.... where's the deathmatch?

What about Team Deathmatch?

SERIOUSLY!


How can they omit the bread and butter of an online FPS, are they fucking stupid? 

Haven't you guys ever played a Battlefield game before?

Eddie_the_Hated
Yeah. It didn't fulfill my FPSaddiction. I'm so bored with the genre right now ...

Well, that being the case, let's see what you've got on the Geometry Wars 2 leaderboards. 

Haven't you guys ever played a Battlefield game before?

Yeah, BF2 has team deathmatch, BF2142 had at least two game modes if I'm not mistaken and they were ballanced/fun.  Even though the game is dated and the sound effects are extremely annoying I'd still rather play BF 2142 or even BF2 over the newest one (I already forgot the name of it).

It has one game mode and it's not even ballanced.  the maps are huge yet you die so easilly.  Most of the time you get killed just trying to get to the action.  and it's so much easier to attack than to defend.  Unless you're with a competent group which is almost never the case, defending is too hard.  I'm always placed with a bunch of dipshits that go all over the map.  This game requires that you play with your friends, and no one even wants to play.  Maybe conquest will be better.  But why not have team deathmatch?  It couldn't possibly be as broken as Gold rush. 

http://xboxmovies.teamxbox.com/xbox-360/7485/Battlefield-Bad-Company-Conquest-Mode-Trailer/

Conquest looks WAY better than Gold Rush.  Maybe the game won't serve as an expensive coaster afterall.  I still expect more modes/maps though.

Battlefield is Battlefield, and you don't play Battlefield for deatmatch. It's just not suited for it. Conquest is just the same old Battlefield mode we've played for years and it should have been available in the retail version, but hey... at least it's free right!?

The re-worked maps will buy the title a couple of months, but after that players are going to start getting really impatient. More maps will be coming though, ...but i don't expect them to be free :(

I agree, but since the majority of sales will have been done in ther first 8 weeks anyway... it doesn't really matter whether people keep playing or not, ...at least from a purely business orientated perspective. It was never going to compete with Halo 3 and CoD4 for the Xbox Live top spot and the singleplayer isn't compelling enough to warrant a purchase on it's own, which is why i don't understand the decision to go console exclusive. The previous games did alright on PC and it's not like it would have been hard to port either way...

I have heard... and i don't agree with it... that there is a new policy whereby our wholly owned studios will create additional game content well before the retail title hits shelves in and effort to extend the sales life of the game. Even if the content is made available for free, if it's ready to go at the time of release then it should be included in the box. I suspect that some stuff will be made available for nothing... like this and the Cagney update for Burnout, and then additional stuff will cost the end consumer. I can't see all DLC being cost free, even if the developments costs were tied up with the retail release.

I have heard... and i don't agree with it... that there is a new policywhereby our wholly owned studios will create additional game contentwell before the retail title hits shelves in and effort to extend thesales life of the game.

I agree on some level. I think charging for code that was ship-ready by launch is absurd. I also think it's going to become an industry trend, regardless of how much code is ready to roll by the street date.

I think it's a pretty logical decision, financially and from a developer's perspective to delay certain content and release it at timed intervals. It holds interest in a title that otherwise would be eclipsed by newer and "better" software. Nobody would have noticed if Infinity Ward had pulled a few maps from Call of Duty 4, and had done a map-a-month deal, as opposed to one large (relatively disappointing) map pack. Logistically it would be a pain, I'm sure. I can't say the effect it would have financially. You most likely know far more than I about how Sony and Microsoft handle their DLC licensing, but it's unarguable that it would hold a userbase, and that sort of thing certainly carries weight in publisher's sequel-heavy core franchises.

Even if the content is made available for free,if it's ready to go at the time of release then it should be includedin the box. I suspect that some stuff will be made available fornothing... like this and the Cagney update for Burnout, and thenadditional stuff will cost the end consumer. I can't see all DLC beingcost free, even if the developments costs were tied up with the retailrelease.

No, probably not. Profit margin will still be profit margin, and at the end of the day, it's a business.

I think that's going to become a larger issue this year than last, because as I said before, I think it's an industry trend, and nobody likes to be cheated out of something, even if it's something they didn't have in the first place.

Bottom line, it's their choice to release extra content, separate and aside from the full title, at a cost determined by them. What will piss me off is when we start to see titles getting stripped of major features (maps, weapons and extras notwithstanding) to scalp their userbase a month after launch, and I can see that happening quite easily with this sort of business model.

I don't mind paying for added content if it redeems the game.  The technical stuff is great, even the gameplay mechanics are good.  The only serious issue I have is the game mode, there's only been one until now and it sucks.  Throw in more modes and I'll be happy.  I'd rather be ripped off by 10$ than 70$.  It's not even about the money, it's just the dissapointment of what the game could be, but isn't.

I don't even pretend to be good at that game. It's fun, and I havenothing against it... but I suck so hard at Geometry Wars...

Everyone sucks when they first play (except Zoy, he's a freak ;) ).  It's like Guitar Hero.  It's fustrating at first but eventually with practise everything turns into muscle memory and it clicks.  Fly your ship in wide circles, never stop shooting and learn the quickest way to kill each enemy type.  Watching the best players play on Youtube has helped me in learning tactics.  Relax and try not to blink.  I find that a cup of coffee helps boost my relexes, too much coffee makes me anxious though.

The first game has a multiplier that increases when you reach set amounts of enemies, maxing out at X10.  Getting an X10 is difficult even for me.  It usually happens when you reach 1 million without dying.  Everytime you die your multiplier resets to 1.  That's why it's important to try not to die as you have a chance of ranking in more points if you stay alive long enough.  Also you don't get points or credit towards your invisible kill count (for multi) when you use your bombs.  The best thing is to learn not to use them except when absolutely necessary.

As for GW2.  It has 6 game modes.  Each completely different.  Evolved is one of the game modes and it's essentially the same thing as the first GW.  Except it has a few new enemies.  A different point multiplier system.  This time enemies leave behind Goems (or something) collecting one adds to your multiplier directely.  So you can have a multi or 1000 or more (not sure if there's a limit) and it doesn't reset when you die, and using bombs also cases the ememies to leave behind Geoms.   So using bombs and losing a life isn't as damaging as it was in GW.  Points go up really fast.  My current GW score is about 2.6 million, and my GW2 score is close to 40 million, my GW score is more impressive.

The other major change is that the enemies seem to be fewer but faster and more aggressive.  They feel like they're trying to kill you more as opposed to mearly filling the screen.

I reccomend trying both GW and GW2, two different beasts.  I love them both.

------------------

The Olympic ceremonies are about to start!

Only you could write an entire printed page on suggestions for me and Geometry Wars Ghost...

...I'll probably be buying two the next point card I get (the next time there's a map pack out, or a decent XBLA game)

Man I could not care less about extra maps, to this day I am still playing the bf2 demo and play the same map over and over again.

Like, the BF2:MC demo?

Do they even still run servers for that? o.0

no, the real bf2, the pc demo!