I am of the opinion that public or at least a large private multiplayer beta testing is border line required for the successful launch of a multiplayer game. Now the definition of a successful launch is far from objective, but to me a successful launch does not include heavy tweaking to balance issues, reworking crashed servers, and a host of launch bugs that make the online experience more trouble than it is worth. The high traffic with a huge cross section of people playing in public betas is a great opportunity for developers to learn and tweak before a games launch.
The Battlefield 3 Beta has been supremely effective at nailing down the necessary data for their designated servers. What it hasn't done so well is advertise for the upcoming blockbuster. I get the feeling from the blazing internet that people are unhappy with the performance issues in the Battlefield 3 Beta. That may have been an understatement. I've read about 10 blogs and articles concerning the issues(graphics, glitches, and host connection issues) and most of them seem to think that the upcoming entry into an established franchise is going to be complete rubbish based on this beta. People are citing cancelled pre-orders and disappearing vehicles as proof that this game doesn't have what it takes to be a great game.
I'm not quite as militant, mainly because I didn't experience the same issues. I played for about 4 hours and was booted from a game once, and never experienced any of the vehicle glitches. The graphics were obviously rough around the edges(the character models weren't as crisp as I've seen in preview videos and there were some textures that popped in a little late, nothing life altering) and some of the animations seemed a little twitchy. On the whole, however, I really enjoyed my time with Battlefield 3. Rush Mode was as compelling as always, the ebb and flow of combat as attackers gained ground or the defenders pushed back felt good, and, even though I was on an XBox 360, I enjoyed the number of players in the matches. I'd be lying if I said I didn't miss the much larger battles of the PC arena, but my PC was occupied at the time so I'll take what I can get.
There was a time that if a game was plagued with issues at release, it was dead in the water, but now with patches and updates, a lot of issues can be solved post release. I don't think that this is a bad thing. I'm glad that developers have the opportunity to rectify issues with their games post release, but it is a little irritating when the first impression isn't up to par and patches take time to prepare and release. During that time, I just spent money on a product that is far from satisfactory.
I'm glad that DICE decided to run the beta. This gives them the chance to prepare their servers, maybe tweak a little balance, and iron out any bugs that occur when their systems are stressed by high levels of traffic. I would rather a developer let me try their game for free to help them solve issues than to fix them post launch, post payment received. At the same time, I hate the bad press Battlefield 3 is getting because they gave us a free opportunity to try their game.
The Battlefield 3 Beta has been supremely effective at nailing down the necessary data for their designated servers. What it hasn't done so well is advertise for the upcoming blockbuster. I get the feeling from the blazing internet that people are unhappy with the performance issues in the Battlefield 3 Beta. That may have been an understatement. I've read about 10 blogs and articles concerning the issues(graphics, glitches, and host connection issues) and most of them seem to think that the upcoming entry into an established franchise is going to be complete rubbish based on this beta. People are citing cancelled pre-orders and disappearing vehicles as proof that this game doesn't have what it takes to be a great game.
I'm not quite as militant, mainly because I didn't experience the same issues. I played for about 4 hours and was booted from a game once, and never experienced any of the vehicle glitches. The graphics were obviously rough around the edges(the character models weren't as crisp as I've seen in preview videos and there were some textures that popped in a little late, nothing life altering) and some of the animations seemed a little twitchy. On the whole, however, I really enjoyed my time with Battlefield 3. Rush Mode was as compelling as always, the ebb and flow of combat as attackers gained ground or the defenders pushed back felt good, and, even though I was on an XBox 360, I enjoyed the number of players in the matches. I'd be lying if I said I didn't miss the much larger battles of the PC arena, but my PC was occupied at the time so I'll take what I can get.
There was a time that if a game was plagued with issues at release, it was dead in the water, but now with patches and updates, a lot of issues can be solved post release. I don't think that this is a bad thing. I'm glad that developers have the opportunity to rectify issues with their games post release, but it is a little irritating when the first impression isn't up to par and patches take time to prepare and release. During that time, I just spent money on a product that is far from satisfactory.
I'm glad that DICE decided to run the beta. This gives them the chance to prepare their servers, maybe tweak a little balance, and iron out any bugs that occur when their systems are stressed by high levels of traffic. I would rather a developer let me try their game for free to help them solve issues than to fix them post launch, post payment received. At the same time, I hate the bad press Battlefield 3 is getting because they gave us a free opportunity to try their game.
No comments:
Post a Comment