برچسب: doesnt

  • Stop trying to ruin our game: Battlefield 6 doesn’t need ranked

    Stop trying to ruin our game: Battlefield 6 doesn’t need ranked


    Battlefield 6 Key Art

    Battlefield 6 is generating some serious buzz in the FPS circles. A seeming spiritual successor to Battlefield 3 and 4, core Battlefield players are hoping it will be a return to form for what Battlefield once was — a class based arcade spectacle sandbox shooter with the potential to produce moments that really no other game can. 

    However, one thing could destroy that return to form, if streamers get their way: Ranked.

    Multiple streamers, including the fast-talking Gamba-obsessed Felix “xQc” Lengyel, have demanded Battlefield add ranked modes (among other things not worth mentioning). For core Battlefield fans, this reads as a foolish demand from someone who doesn’t really get what the core Battlefield experience is about.

    The magic of Battlefield is in the scale of it all. And that scale is a big reason why a competitive mode just wouldn’t make the game better.

    No, Ranked Won’t Work in Battlefield 6

    With 64 and 128-person servers, Battlefield matches are big — huge even. The game is a sandbox where players have a lot of creative freedom to enjoy large-scale combat across a variety of terrains and using a variety of weapons and vehicles. Players log on to be a part of these massive struggles, where you can’t really control the outcome.

    Sure, the real sweats are going to make a difference more than the average player, but when the match is 64 v 64, individual contribution is minimal.

    Given that fact, competitive modes that promote and demote folks based on if they win or not would struggle to accurately reward players. You could probably reward people based on individual performance, but then you are likely to run into the same problems that other games do with skill-based matchmaking, a system that has long frustrated many players in the Call of Duty community for one.

    Among these problems is the risk of min/maxing the fun out of the game with essential meta builds, since the goal is to win a ranked game not to explore the game and have fun.

    On top of that, introducing a competitive mode would split the player base between the casual and competitive playlists. Then it would further split the players into their ranks, and with huge servers to fill, the probability is that the higher you climb the harder it will be to find games in a timely manner — or the game will compromise the skill-based match-making, in which case why have it?

    And then there is the issue of balancing. When ranked modes are added to games, there is a tendency for devs to balance those games around the ranked experience. This is fine in games designed to be highly competitive, tight-knit shooter experiences — Like Counter-Strike, VALORANT, and more.

    But Battlefield (at least the best Battlefield titles) has always been about the general player experience. In fact, Battlefield at its best has historically been based on server browser with no real matchmaking at all.

    Battlefield 2042, single-player, campaign, multiplayer, EA, DICE

    I’m not suggesting balance changes shouldn’t be made, of course they should be. But the balancing should be done to keep the general player experience good, not privilege the highest ranked players who are sequestered in their own ranked games away from the general population.

    In short, Battlefield is meant to be a celebration of arcade shooters, a game that is about teamwork and having fun blowing stuff up. For some people, ranked progress is the only thing that keeps them coming back to a game, and that’s okay. But if you need a ranked mode to motivate you to come back daily, don’t play Battlefield — and don’t come into our game and demand we make it for you.

    The incentive to play Battlefield is, and always should be, that it’s damn fun. Battlefield has never been an overly competitive shooter, in fact it has proudly stood as an alternative to that side of the FPS genre. If pushed to become a competitive ranked game it could very well lose the core of its own identity — a sandbox spectacle that makes you feel like the hero in your own story.

    For now, let’s try to enjoy the beta.


    The Escapist is supported by our audience. When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn a small affiliate commission. Learn more about our Affiliate Policy



    Source link

  • Take-Two boss says GTA 6 price will be “fair” but doesn’t rule out $80 cost

    Take-Two boss says GTA 6 price will be “fair” but doesn’t rule out $80 cost


    Take-Two, the parent company of Rockstar Games, just posted its quarterly financial results – rather good ones, at that. For those of us that aren’t investors, the good news to come out of its latest report is that GTA 6‘s launch date remains unmoved. No delays this time. However, another big question mark looming over GTA 6 is its price tag – will it match or even exceed the new $80 benchmark set by Nintendo? That question was posed to Take-Two boss Strauss Zelnick ahead of today’s financial report, and while he didn’t give any specifics on GTA 6’s price, he did assure that it would be “fair.”

    The $80 issue has been one of this year’s key gaming talking points. Nintendo was the first to take that step with its biggest Switch 2 titles. Microsoft then followed suit, announcing that The Outer Worlds 2 would retail at $80 – however, just a few weeks later, it backtracked and slashed its price down to $70, confirming that none of this year’s big Xbox first-party releases would make the jump. Battlefield 6 is without a doubt a desirable, triple-A game, and many thought that EA would jump at the chance to make it an $80 game, but it too has held firm. Despite some now infamous comments from Randy Pitchford about increased game prices, Borderlands 4 (published by Take-Two-owned 2K Games) is also sticking with $70.

    There’s a hesitancy to follow in Nintendo’s footsteps, and many believe that the GTA 6 release date could be the true catalyst for solidifying that new top level price across the industry. Speaking to Zelnick before the new financial report was released, Variety quizzes him on whether GTA 6 will target an $80 price point.

    YouTube Thumbnail

    “So now that announcement will come from Rockstar in due time,” he says. “Our goal always is to deliver more value than what we charge, so we’ve had variable pricing at the company forever. As you know, the approach of the industry is to launch at a premium price, sometimes with special editions, and over time, typically to reduce the price to enhance the overall size of the market. We do the very same thing. I think, probably more than most, we’re highly focused on making sure that the experience is great, not just because the game itself is great, but also because consumers have paid a fair price for it.”

    It’s not the most committal answer in the world, and one that certainly doesn’t rule out an $80 price tag. The promise of a “fair” price is encouraging. But the “deliver more value than what we charge” comment could suggest that the sky is the limit – given its scope, and the fact GTA 5 is still going strong more than a decade later, the ‘value’ GTA 6 will deliver is surely gargantuan. Does that also mean a gargantuan price tag? Maybe.

    Until Rockstar actually reveals its price and shows us more of what GTA 6 has to offer, find out everything we know so far from our friends at GTA Db. Alternatively, here are some colossal and brilliant open-world games to get lost in before your trip to Leonida.

    You can follow us on Google News for daily PC games news, reviews, and guides. We’ve also got a vibrant community Discord server, where you can chat about this story with members of the team and fellow readers.



    Source link