E3 2012: EA Press Conference Reaction

I wasn't looking for much from EA's press conference. Despite being the largest video game publisher in the world, I'm not a fan. Although, as it happens, they publish one of my favorite games, Battlefield 3. And with so much activity in the Battlefield world lately, I most definitely sat through them droning on about their sports franchises (including an entire 20 minutes on FIFA 13) so that I could hear from DICE.

The big Battlefield announcement was Battlefield Premium. For a one time fee of $50 (it's $49.99 but let's call it what it is) a player can gain access to, what I am rather surprised to be, an impressive host of content for the price. First and foremost, you get all 5 of the expansions. At the normal price of $15 apiece, that'd run you $75. So for just this, you're saving $25 versus doing it a la carte. On top of that, you get a number of exclusive in-game items like solider camouflages, gun camouflages, special dog tags, a unique melee knife, and unique assignments. Players also get the privilege to reset stats, get priority queuing into servers as well as exclusive double XP events.

Frankly, I think that's a ton of content for the price. When I first heard rumors about this premium service DICE was gonna slap onto Battlefield, I was worried they'd ruin it. Thank God they haven't. I've never been a fan of exclusives. But it looks like the industry is finally finding a way to do it right. It used to be that it gave people who had the dough a decided advantage in the game itself. Since I'm planning on buying all of these expansions anyways, I have an actual economic reason that's not silly for also getting all the extra gimmicky in-game goodies that I feel kinda silly for wanting to pay for anyways. Unfortunately for me, I already shelled out $15 for Back to Karkand, so I'm only saving $10 in the end, but that's still some money. Which means I'm gonna have to buy it before next week, when Close Quarters comes out or else I'm actually losing money on just the expansion pack values and actually paying some for the gimmicks. Which I suppose wouldn't be so bad, because while I hate to admit it, I have actually paid for things like Xbox Live avatar items before. (Hangs head in shame).

Although one very exciting, and quite surprising piece of news from the press conference, was the demo of Medal of Honor Warfighter. I'd heard about this a few weeks ago, but EA had a nice little live gameplay demo of some singleplayer action, followed by some edited video of some multiplayer. I was pleasantly surprised at how good the singleplayer action looked. It's nice to see the Frostbite 2 engine at work in another game than just Battlefield, and to see another developer using the engine than just DICE. Despite it being the same engine, the developer seems to have tweaked it well enough that it doesn't look to be just another Battlefield impersonator, which is what many criticized the first Medal of Honor (not really the "first" per se, as MoH goes back a very long way) as being. I personally never thought that, having owned and played both Battlefield Bad Co. 2 and Medal of Honor. The multiplayer seems to have introduced a rather compelling aspect, which is the choice of which country to fight for. EA seemed to suggest during their demo that since gamers exist all over the world, it'd be good to cater to those that aren't Americans. Let's face it, most modern military FPSs feature militaries from one of the world's major powers (U.S., Russia, UK is just about as big as the pool gets). Nearly every country with a respectable military has a branch that features Tier 1 SpecOps operators and letting someone from Canada or Germany or Australia play as their own flag is, I think, a very cool, yet brilliantly simple way, of enhancing the game and maybe even drawing in some gamers who would have previously passed this title over. How exactly your choice of homeland will effect the actual game play remains to be seen, as not much in way of this was revealed during the demo. I suppose we'll see. But all things considered, I enjoyed the first MoH and it's sequel looks to be even better. I might actually have to pass it up, unfortunately, because of the investment in Battlefield Premium I'm ultimately going to make.

The other big game at the showing was Crysis 3, and I've never played any of those and they don't really peak my interest much, as well as Madden and FIFA 13. Although I do enjoy EA Sports' titles (except for FIFA, I just can't get into soccer...yes soccer), I almost never have money to buy them. The show also saw other demos and announcements including a SimCity re-boot from Maxis (I didn't know they were still around), a Need For Speed: Most Wanted re-boot from the makers of Hot Pursuit, and an official partnership announcement between EA Sports and UFC.

The CoDified Future of Battlefield

I'm a long time player and fan of both the Battlefield and Call of Duty franchises. Along with Halo, they are the cream of the crop when it comes to FPS games. I've been playing Battlefield since Battlefield 2, Call of Duty since the original Modern Warfare, and Halo since Halo 2. Without a doubt, however, I would rather play a Battlefield game than any other FPS, if I were given a single choice. Consequently, I am often labeled as a "hater". To that I say, "sure, whatever". Label me as you will. I love other shooters, but none have given me the amount of satisfaction as the intense and frenzied team play you find in a Battlefield game. But I worry about the future of DICE and it's precious Battlefield franchise.

For those who are unfamiliar with the current news out of the Battlefield camp, DICE has announced 3 major expansions for Battlefield 3: Close Quarters, Armored Kill, and End Game, two of which release this year. The first will be out this June, or at least we hope. June 12 is the official date announced by DICE and EA, but we'll see if that turns out to be true. With Close Quarters, we will see a departure from the large maps with jets, tanks, helicopters, and APCs that characterize a typical Battlefield map. Instead we've been promised smaller, mostly indoor, maps where infantry combat will be featured. The action will be intense, fast paced, and because the Frostbite 2 engine will not have to render such large scale maps, we've been promised that these maps will feature larger amounts of destruction and vertical gameplay.

For the last few weeks, I've been pretty pumped, anticipating the inclusion of new maps, weapons, and new tactics to get used to. We gamers love to spice things up with new ways to play a game. I envision the kind of enigmatic firefight that takes place in The Matrix between Neo, Trinity, and two dozen or so SWAT dressed baddies in the lobby of the high rise as the pair attempt to rescue Morpheus. Pillars shredding to nothing as bullets and grenades fly everywhere. When this releases, I'm gonna have some good ol' fun with it. No doubt.

But the last couple days, the thought has been irking me...this seems a bit more "CoDified", if I may invent a new word. Why the fuck not, the English language is already wonky as hell anyways. While the CoD vs Battlefield debate rages within the gaming community, it is undeniable that the masses of gamers out there now know about Battlefield. While in the past it was a game that the PC minority enjoyed, the huge step DICE and EA took to ensure a great Battlefield experience on the consoles has opened up the franchise to a much broader audience. Ergo, a whole lot of CoD and Halo players have begun to give Battlefield a try, whether or not they end up liking it. Let's face it, the large scale maps, vehicles, and immersive destruction and audio of Battlefield 3 and it's Frostbite 2 engine can be quite a shell shock for any gamer used to the pace and play of Call of Duty. Consequently, many don't like it.

And yet there's another group who will come to love it, yet don't adjust to the style of play Battlefield-ers are used to. They'll be engaged by the immersive qualities the gameplay and engine offer, but continue to play it as though it were only about the kills, and not about the team work and tactics that characterize a Battlefield game. And it is THIS group that I'm concerned about. This demographic will grow with the release of Close Quarters this July. The game style promoted by it is much more reminiscent of a Call of Duty title than a Battlefield title. Given that the masses are now aware of Battlefield's existence, there's going to be a ton of gamers giving Battlefield a try if they can play it like Call of Duty. And one of two things will happen if there is a sudden influx of CoD and Halo players. They'll adjust to Battlefield's pace and team oriented play, or they'll keep playing it like CoD and just dilute the game for the rest of us. I think the PC platform will be largely untouched by this problem, but for us console players, we're going to have to deal with a whole slew of the CoD crowd not being team players and just running around for kills. It's going to be frustrating, and I'm not sure if I'm so pumped for Close Quarters any more.

I could be full of hot air here, and believe me, I hope I am, but I draw from past experience in forming this opinion. Let's consider what happened to a little game known as Project Reality:

Project Reality is a mod by Black Sand Studio based on Battlefield 2. It's goal is to use the game to create as realistic an experience as possible. And let me tell you, they sure as hell succeed. It's so excellent at this, that it's come to be referred to as a "walking sim" by both those who love and hate it. While it's incredibly frustrating to play at first, because of the insanely slow pace, as you come to learn its ins-and-outs, you start to fall in love. Get in that first awesome squad, and in that first firefight, and you feel so immersed. You literally feel like you're an infantryman in Afghanistan fighting an insurgency as your squad leader barks orders and you and your squadmates as he coordinates with another squad to pincer attack an entrenched enemy. I understand that some people just don't like uber-realistic gameplay, and that's perfectly OK. I however, have been a massive military nerd since I can remember, and I was completely hooked. I spent night after night during my summers providing logistic transport, building firebases, crewing tanks, and Mumbling it up with a bunch of like-minded realism seekers. And as the time passed, and new versions came, and word began to spread more and more, the community started to grow. As more players came to try it out, I saw more and more dilution of the gameplay and a wearing away of the mentality of wanting to play it "right". The phrase "go back to vanilla" became used so much that it became a punch line. And keep in mind, Battlefield players have always been considered the "nerds" of the FPS community of gamers. This was nerds eroding the gameplay for uber-nerds. Unfortunately I've been away from the PR community for the last two years or so, so I can't speak to the condition of the game now, but I can attest to the dumbing down of the mod, and it was sad to see happen.

This may seem silly, but this is my hobby and I love Battlefield 3. I'm weary of what Close Quarters could end up being. I'm worried it's going to open up the game to those who don't care to play Battlefield the way a Battlefield game should be played. It's hard enough as it is, playing on my Xbox 360 and being frustrated that the moronic medic next to you won't throw his med pack down despite you calling for it in-game and with your mic as you sit at 4% heath because you just covered his back at the stair way and took a few rounds to the chest. I would venture to guess that only something like 20% of console Battlefield 3 players use the spotting mechanic, or even understand what it does or know it even exists. I so very much wish I could own a decent desktop computer and join the Battlefield 3 PC crowd that I very much believe will be mostly untouched by what I fear will be a swarm of CoD and Halo players diluting the Battlefield 3 experience. I guess we shall see.