Electronic Arts is gunning to reduce the Call Of Duty series' success this year - and is pinning its hopes on Battlefield: Bad Company 2 to land the first blow.
That's according to the fighting talk of the firm's European boss, Jens Uwe Intat.
He claimed this week that the launch of the game was EA's 'first strong attack' on the Activision franchise - and that its developer DICE could "take on Modern Warfare".
"In March we will launch Battlefield: Bad Company 2, which is our first strong attack on Call Of Duty," he told MCV Magazine today.
"The shooter space is one we don't want to give up. It's an important genre and we were the number one. So we are certainly working on how we can get that crown back and Battlefield: Bad Company 2 is an important product in that context.
He added: "If any of our studios can take on Modern Warfare, then it's DICE."
We reported yesterday that DICE had made it easier to kill in B:BC2 than in the original game - perhaps in an attempt to make the game accessible to MW2 fans.
EA Vs Activision, interesting to see who would win this one. But anyway, Call of Duty has a massive fan base. Activision could print a blank disc and market it at full retail price and it would still sell over a million - probably will end up doing that at some point as well just for the money. But BFBC2 has to be a massive hit to even dent the CoD fanbase.
that is annyoing when you see everything being made for casual gamers.
There is not going to be any 'core' gamers left by the end. Don't get me wrong though, good on Dice! i hope they blow cod out of the water (is that the correct phrase ? haven't used it in years)
adding killcam for the reprobates that repeatedly run out in the open in the same place - destroying sniper tactics (call it camping if you wish - if you keep getting caught out by them - especially after you have learnt the map - you are pish!)
make an easy make even easier, brilliant.
whats next?!
dream on EA, this is never gonna come close to COD sales... dont piss off your existing fans or you'll end up with fuck all.
Bad Company 2 Beta was a much more enjoyable online experience than Modern Warfare 2 so IMHO from a quality perspective EA have already exceeded Activisions COD series. Number of sales though, I doubt they will be able to match COD.
It's a shame that number of sales probably won't match COD. But for me BFBC is the much better game.
I bought COD on launch day, became addicted to it as with COD4, then, the BFBC beta started and that was it, I just could not return to COD. COD just seems so dull in comparison now, with all the vehicles, destruction etc... and that was from a 1 level beta, I cannot wait for the full game with more maps, choppers, jet skis, boats - bring it on!
Battlefield already kicks CoDs ass in the multiplayer stakes, hopefully BC2s single player will be a big improvement of the surprisingly decent first foray. The hype for CoD has to die at some stage, yearly CoDs are a bit much.
They really need work at upping the number of concurrent players in the multiplayer servers for the consoles - at least to 64 players a la the PC, but BF does p*ss all over CoD anyway.
Regardless of what anyone thinks of Modern Warfare, if it's actually made other developers sit up and try harder, then MW2's success has been good for everyone.
I'm one of the few that's had enough of Modern Warfare already (actually it only last two weeks for me). I'm not going to say anything bad about it, but it's just not the game for me. I'm desperate to have a modern combat based game that I love and want to play all the time. Operation Flashpoint failed. Modern Warfare 2 has failed me too. I never cared for Bad Company. Really didn't care for the demo. My hopes currently lie in Medal of Honour providing the game I want.
What I'd really like to see in a modern combat game are four main features. Firstly I want full customisation of the controls. X and Y speeds independently adjustable, along with the option to choose whatever buttons, triggers and combinations I want – not what the developers decide. I also want the game difficulty to be reflected in the display and the way the game plays. On it's hardest difficulty I never want to see radars, maps, ammo counts, etc. Movement should be realistic, as should damage etc. On the easiest settings, sure allow players to move at unrealistic faster speeds, have scanners and radars, etc... all the stuff a newcomer would love. Also I want a map editor, on the console version. It can be done, we know this, and it's a wonderful feature. It allows gamers to create favourite maps from other games and for creative gamers to design maps of their own. Finally I want a 4-player campaign co-op mode! To date I have never seen a console FPS with all of these features. Oh, and while I'm asking the impossible, for the game to run at 60 frames a second. Ok now I'm asking for a game the industry could never create!
I know eventually I'll be forced back to gaming on the computer as developers don't seem to believe console gamers want these features. If only what I wanted was to swing my arms around to hit virtual balls, or loved dressing up stupid looking avatars!!!
BAd company doesn't neeed to do anything to beat COD. Its already a billion times better. I just hope that the campain keeps the same tone as the original. It was like playing the lovechild of stripes and full metal jacket. Bloody brilliant from start to finish.
Medal of Honor might actually choke the living daylights out of COD with there new game! there consentrating heavily on the single player story mode, with the battlefield team working on the multiplayer! can't infinity ward and treyach come together with 1 dev working on single player and the other on multiplayer?
What do you mean these days? It's a f**king business, they're not charities. Of course it's about the money, if they didn't make money there wouldn't be any games aside from ones cobbled together in someones bedroom from four empty bean cans and some coloured string.
What do you mean these days? It's a f**king business, they're not charities. Of course it's about the money, if they didn't make money there wouldn't be any games aside from ones cobbled together in someones bedroom from four empty bean cans and some coloured string.
I think he means it's more literal.
Back in the old days being loyal to your fanbase meant that the company would listen to what the fans wanted and act acordingly. Now we, the fans, are made to do what ever the developer wants. Because they choose to do what they want. Not vice versa.
Back in the old days being loyal to your fanbase meant that the company would listen to what the fans wanted and act acordingly. Now we, the fans, are made to do what ever the developer wants. Because they choose to do what they want. Not vice versa.
Yes but one persons view is not reflective of a whole consumer base now is it. If one person doesn’t like killcams because they give away his sniping spot then another will like it because of just that reason. Perhaps they have listened to fans, just not mental ones.
Look at Ubisoft, took all the criticisms of a mediocre game and turned the sequel into a genuinely fantastic game with Assassin’s Creed 2.
You’re never made to do what the developer wants, as you can always vote with your wallet.
As for the ‘old days’ when exactly might they be? As here you’re talking about changes made to the sequel of a game that came out in 2008…
They really need work at upping the number of concurrent players in the multiplayer servers for the consoles - at least to 64 players a la the PC, but BF does p*ss all over CoD anyway.
I am starting to wonder if this is some sort of limitation with the 360, Sony have a number of online games with a large amount of players on the servers but all the multiplat game and 360 games that I have played all have smaller player numbers.
It could just be a coincidence though, Sony themselves really seem to be pushing large servers with Warhawk, Resistance 2 and now MAG, they seem to be the only developer willing to try and increase player numbers to the sort of levels the PC enjoys.
Re: comments such as those made by Feedel: It's time that you and other so called 'hardcore' gamers appreciated the fact that you are in a massive minority - why should games companies cater wholly to them? They're not just businesses, they're entertainment businesses spending huge amounts on developing games to entertain as many people as possible. Why is this a bad thing? Surely if companies such as EA sell a shed load of derivative 'year x' titles they'll use some of the profits from these endeavours to finance more niche projects such as Mass Effect or Dead Space?
The games industry needs to evolve beyond a minority of manic obsessives and spread it's wings into new areas in order to grow. The tired rantings of 'core' gamers is a detriment to a rapidly expanding industry, a small very vocal group seeking to mire gaming in base, repetitive rehashings of the same formulas.
As the root audience of gaming, you will always be catered to, but in future to a much smaller extent than you're used to. As always some will stick around to watch it change and others will abandon it as something unrecognisable to what they love. The same thing happens whenever a band, actor, etc make the break into the mainstream - that core audience that brought them there feel alienated as source of their fandom start to change and express themselves in new ways ('sell out'). These fans tend to abandon the artist and find themselves a newer, smaller name to attach themselves to - repeating the process ad nauseum.
They really need work at upping the number of concurrent players in the multiplayer servers for the consoles - at least to 64 players a la the PC, but BF does p*ss all over CoD anyway.
I am starting to wonder if this is some sort of limitation with the 360, Sony have a number of online games with a large amount of players on the servers but all the multiplat game and 360 games that I have played all have smaller player numbers.
I did think that, but then FFXI came out quite a while ago and as an MMO that could cope with large numbers of concurrent users. So I guess it might just require a lot of hard work to get a stable game that works correctly, something that multi-plat devs aren't prepared to do.
I'll pick up BC2 on PC for the multi player, but I'll not be playing the campaign mode(I tried the first one and hated it).
@SVD(and others like him), stop moaning about COD:MW2, either buy the damn thing and play it, or shut the hell up and let the rest of us live in peace.
Back in the old days being loyal to your fanbase meant that the company would listen to what the fans wanted and act acordingly.
I've been gaming (originally on the ZX Spectrum, later on the PC, each of the Playstations, the GameCube, and the Wii) since the mid 80's, and I'm afraid what you've just said is rose-tinted nonsense.
There are, always have been, and always will be numerous developers who couldn't give a crap what their fans think, and there are, always have been, and always will be numerous developers who listen and respond to their fans. (And there also are, always have been, and always will be numerous publishers who interfere with whatever developer-fan relationship exists.)
Case in point: The Medal of Honour series has been around for over ten years, and I don't recall EA or either of the developers involved with the early games, i.e. DreamWorks Interactive and 2015 Inc (the predecessor to Infinity Ward), ever giving any real indication of listening to the series' fans. It's only with the very latest game in the series that EA are actually (somewhat) paying attention.
Similar, it would seem to me that BioWare have been and are continuing to pay far more attention to their fans during the development of their recent games, i.e. Mass Effect 1 & 2 and Dragon Age, than they did during development of the likes of Neverwinter Nights 1. (If they had, maybe the NWN single player campaign wouldn't been quite so utterly crap).
Another example is ID Software, who pay just as much attention to their fans now as they did back when the 'net first started to became popular back in the mid 90's. John Carmack even occasionally still posts on certain Doom and Quake fan websites. In fact, the on-line Doom community strongly influenced the development of the iPhone port of the original Doom.
I look forward to seeing and reading what "Bad Company 2" has to offer, however I am currently more interested in what the new "Medal of Honour" game brings to the table. Either one (or both?) could bring EA much success and chip away at Activision's position.
I look forward to seeing and reading what "Bad Company 2" has to offer, however I am currently more interested in what the new "Medal of Honour" game brings to the table. Either one (or both?) could bring EA much success and chip away at Activision's position.
I think you're right. Medal of Honour does have an interesting hook to it, in the form of the single player based in the modern day, while BF:BC2 has that Frostbite engine, to shake things up in multiplayer. It'll be interesting to see how this'll turn out.
I think you're right. Medal of Honour does have an interesting hook to it, in the form of the single player based in the modern day, while BF:BC2 has that Frostbite engine, to shake things up in multiplayer. It'll be interesting to see how this'll turn out.
I found the Frostbite engine to be a little bit of a disappointment in the BFBC2 beta. It's not really much of a leap in tech from the BF1943 engine.
I did think that, but then FFXI came out quite a while ago and as an MMO that could cope with large numbers of concurrent users. So I guess it might just require a lot of hard work to get a stable game that works correctly, something that multi-plat devs aren't prepared to do.
I am surprised DICE haven't tried to though as Battlefield really benefits from more players, especially given the size of the maps in their games. BFBC2 will have the same amount of players as BFBC, you would have thought they would have tried to increase player count by a few more players if possible. I can understand IW not doing this as COD is suited to a small player count. I am just amazed that MS haven't tried it themselves, they have the edge in almost every other aspect of console online (Still miles behind the PC though) yet they seem to gift Sony the win in player numbers online.
I found the Frostbite engine to be a little bit of a disappointment in the BFBC2 beta. It's not really much of a leap in tech from the BF1943 engine.
1943 uses a lot of the new features from Frostbite 2.0 but doesn't have the fully destructible buildings, its kind of Frostbite 1.5 so the upgrade from 1943 to BFBC2 is a lot less noticeable then the upgrade from BFBC to BFBC2. The total destruction in BFBC2 is pretty cool though when you have a building collapse on top of you or have rubble rain down upon you from a wall destroyed above you.
1943 uses a lot of the new features from Frostbite 2.0 but doesn't have the fully destructible buildings, its kind of Frostbite 1.5 so the upgrade from 1943 to BFBC2 is a lot less noticeable then the upgrade from BFBC to BFBC2. The total destruction in BFBC2 is pretty cool though when you have a building collapse on top of you or have rubble rain down upon you from a wall destroyed above you.
That's the problem with the engine though. Not all the buildings can be destroyed. As you say, it's impressive calling in a mortar strike and knocking down a multi story building but why does the same mortar strike not knock down partially built buildings? In the beta, as you move from the check point at the start down into the town. The first building you meet is an unfinished 3 story office block. You can't destroy a single wall in that building. Trust me I've tried, it's a bit of a snipers nest because of that. One of the communication hubs is on the ground floor of a finished 3 story office block in the town centre. You can completely raze that building to the ground if you want.
I hope that BFBC2 can start to knock MW, because the more quality games out there the better.
MW2 is an excellent game and from what I've read and seen for BC2, it also is brilliant. I loved BF2 and even 2142 for PC and I think BC2 captures the spirit of those games brilliantly from what I've seen so I'm really looking forward to it.
Also this talk about the destruction in BC...It's not quite RF but I dont think that the Geo-Mod 2.0 is all that good. Yeah so fair enough you knock buildings down and the physics for it are pretty good but then all the parts of the building vanish and when it falls apart there are basically no particle effects and it looks like Lego. Even if BC2 has a pre-rendered animation for destruction at least it'll look cool each time unlike the Geo-Mod.
That's the problem with the engine though. Not all the buildings can be destroyed. As you say, it's impressive calling in a mortar strike and knocking down a multi story building but why does the same mortar strike not knock down partially built buildings? In the beta, as you move from the check point at the start down into the town. The first building you meet is an unfinished 3 story office block. You can't destroy a single wall in that building. Trust me I've tried, it's a bit of a snipers nest because of that. One of the communication hubs is on the ground floor of a finished 3 story office block in the town centre. You can completely raze that building to the ground if you want.
The little green barracks type buildings not been fully destructible annoyed me more than the half built buildings, I am guessing these unfinished buildings are a deliberate choice the developers have made to keep some control over how the map is played as technically there shouldn't be a problem having those get levelled to the ground as well.
Doesn't anyone play Counter Strike: Source anymore? *sobs*
I do from time to time and by the looks of the multitude of populated servers there are many others who do as well. Lately I've been playing "L4D2" via Steam though as opposed to "CS:Source".
The little green barracks type buildings not been fully destructible annoyed me more than the half built buildings, I am guessing these unfinished buildings are a deliberate choice the developers have made to keep some control over how the map is played as technically there shouldn't be a problem having those get levelled to the ground as well.
It could be, I suppose if the game went on for long enough and everything on the map was destroyed or blown up it would become a very boring end to the game. What did you think of the beta? I really enjoyed it, even more than MW2.
SORRY but i didnt buy into MW2 as the price and length of the game were a disgrace as for BFBC2 it's to late been march.My money is on SEGA stealing the high ground with what looks and sounds like the best FPS to date,no I'm not talking the best graphics but the best looking game.AvP 3 games in 1 with what teases to be some very tense and atmospheric settings this I think will kill of the spawn freindly COD game as 1 life per round add's all the more tension,take Socom not the best looking but in a ranked game it's a great game.
It could be, I suppose if the game went on for long enough and everything on the map was destroyed or blown up it would become a very boring end to the game. What did you think of the beta? I really enjoyed it, even more than MW2.
Bad Company 2 Beta was probably the best online game I played last year. I really enjoyed it and I liked the improvements made from BC to BC2. Its hard going back to games with none destructible walls and having to take time to go around something rather than just making a hole to move though
I hope a demo comes out for battlefield. Played one years ago taht I wasn't mad about but then again it was at least 4 years ago. Cod sometimes I love it, and sometimes I want to smash it. Campers, Boosters and commando is what does's it for me. It's like getting knifed by the flash.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court, 30 Monmouth Street, Bath, UK BA1 2BW England and Wales company registration number 2008885
