Battlefield 1943 and the copy-cat game

Last week, EA and DICE announced a new entry into the Battlefield franchise, Battlefield 1943. On first glance, BF1943 looks like a return to the classic origins of this franchise. A return to the massive battles where large teams would coordinate on a single map with a variety of different player classes using an assortment of vehicles to capture flags and obtain victory wrapped in a shiny new graphical engine. And while this would have been nothing groundbreaking the original Battlefield 1942 remains a classic multiplayer game with its own unique sensibilities and the controlled chaos present in every game of Battlefield 1942 was a fond experience for many online players.

And originally this post was going to be one reminiscing about some of the better aspects of the original BF1942. But each new detail that emerges about Battlefield 1943 seems to sap my original enthusiasm about the game. Forget that there are only three maps on release and a hard cap of 24 players per map. The reduction of the Battlefield class system to three classes that are all variants of soldier, the removal of a lot of player control concerning transports like ships, and the additional of regenerating health and infinite ammo are all major causes for concern at this point. And with all those changes, its the simplification of classes that gives me the greatest concern.

The stated reason from New York Comic-Con about the changes to the original class system was so that “every class [would] be able to fight in every situation.” And on a certain level, that makes sense. It is frustrating to end up in an in-game situation where your character is completely helpless and the only end result is death. After all, if you’re playing alone there’s very little you could do.

But that’s frustrating in a single-player experience. And Battlefield is by design a team game. Conflicts are between groups of players that should be diversified to provide the best chance for victory. In order to win in the previous Battlefield games you couldn’t just have your scouts and gunners, you needed your engineers to repair vehicles, you needed your antitanks to protect your encampments from enemies, and you needed medics to keep everyone else alive. All these classes played vital non-combative roles that were necessary for victory. So if you were a soldier and you came running into a tank it was not a death sentence because you could count on a teammate to bail you out (assuming you had a good team).

If the problem was that these classes weren’t deemed “fun enough” to play without the gun-fighting, that’s a problem with making these classes more rewarding. Valve has tackled this situation admirably in Team Fortress 2 as the various secondary/support classes have had a lot of attention paid to their mechanics in order to making them rewarding to play even when the player isn’t fighting. This is even more true in TF2 than in Battlefield, medics for example must always be firing their heal beam in TF2, an ideal medic will never have to fight! Battlefield’s medics by contrast were still an important class that could hold their own in a pinch, you just wouldn’t want to do that all game.

Really, it almost feels like EA and DICE were afraid that lone wolf players would be constantly punished for running into situations they wouldn’t be able to deal with. But team games should punish lone wolf players. It makes good sense in a game where everyone is organized into teams to reward players who help teammates and punish those who go out on their own. Yes, it is frustrating when you end up with a bad team, but that would be true with or without these changes to the class system. Call of Duty’s multiplayer allows for lone wolf gameplay consistently yet the frustration remains when you lose because the rest of your team performs poorly. Bad teams will exist regardless of these alterations.

The last thing is that it’ll be argued that these changes were implemented to allow casual players a game with less complexity and less frustration. But I actually think the opposite would be true. Now players with the most experience and skills as related to the traditional gamer skillset (point-and-shoot FPS mechanics) will be the most rewarded. By removing the non-combat classes you essentially force everyone to play roughly the same way. This means that the casual player, who might not be the best shooter in the world, will now have to play the game primarily as a shooting game. No longer can you hope to be a medic and be valuable by keeping other teammates alive, no longer can you hope to be an engineer and score your points by fixing vehicles, now in order to succeed you need to win by the pistol.

What’s most disappointing about all of this is that a game like Battlefield 1942 is still a unique multiplayer game in this day and age. Increasingly FPS multiplayer games are variations of the Call of Duty model for multiplayer. Battlefield 1943 could have carved a nice little niche for itself in this crowded multiplayer environment by taking the core mechanics and systems of the original, smooth out some of the rough edges a little, and transplanting that into today’s games. Instead, it seems like they decided to smooth Battlefield until it was indistinguishable from every other WWII game out there.

On the Mirror’s Edge

A few weeks ago EA and DICE (of former Battlefield glory) unveiled their newest title in development for the PS3/360, Mirror’s Edge. It’s the kind of game that jumps out immediately in the crowded next-gen market with too many me-too titles. It’s the kind of title that makes you angry — not because it exists — but because it exists and you weren’t the developers who came up with the idea first.

mirrors_edge1
Faith (yes, that’s her name) and the city of Mirror’s Edge (not the actual city name)

For anyone who hasn’t seen the trailer yet, I urge you to view it in HD at GameTrailers.com. The trailer demonstrates a simulated gameplay experience showing off the core concepts of the game. Running, sliding, and the use of momentum and proper acceleration to overcome obstacles be they inanimate or human. Also included is an awesome tune that pretty much makes the trailer.

One aspect of the game that immediately jumps out is the beautiful spartan art style employed on the architecture of the city. The simple color scheme with highlights various objects with a few bright colors among a lot of white is a welcome change from the typical grim and dirty realism that most FPS games strive for nowadays. The color scheme however isn’t just for giving Mirror’s Edge a unique look amongst a sea of derivatives, but also represents a smart way to accentuate important gameplay aspects of the city in this parkour-inspired game. From an interview with MTV’s Multiplayer blog:

Multiplayer: Is that the visual design? No green?

O’Brien: Well, the visual design isn’t that we targeted green to take it out. The art direction grew out of the gameplay. We wanted to give people a sense of the world very quickly and move through it very quickly. We initially stripped out all of the colors and then just put in red [to guide people to objectives]. But we needed more colors to break it up

mirrors_edge2
How does anything get done in a city with a population of one?

I hope the use of colors to illustrate potential paths is just the first step DICE made in developing Mirror’s Edge. Various screenshots lead me to believe this is true. Note how both in various images for the game and the trailer (which I know you’ve seen by now) seems to consistently highlight certain objects using specific colors. Red is the most obvious and striking. In the trailer red is used on ramps that are to be jumped, pipes to tightrope walk or grab onto, doors to kick down, and other objects which scream “action”. Blue and oranges seem to be more general colors highlighting areas that would be useful for running, jumping, or sliding to quickly advance through the city. Even the color green makes two brief appearances in the trailer coloring the car in the city and the rail that Faith is using to avoid detection during the montage making green a “stealth” color.

The development of Mirror’s Edge lends credence to John Riccitiello’s claim that EA has moved on from its homogenized, sports-and-licensed-properties-only past and is now fully supportive of developers crafting their own unique games. Mirror’s Edge and Dead Space this year along with such titles from last year like skate show EA are all promising signs of a more mature company that understands the need to balance their portfolio with both original fare and licensed games/sequels. Titles like Mirror’s Edge are still multimillion dollar ventures that other studios can only dream of matching, but instead of being typical generic titles that litter this industry the gameplay ideas are both different and innovative. EA is taking actual risk when they support games like Mirror’s Edge and I for one can only hope these gambles pay off for them in significant ways.