Originally Posted by dlerch
I'm just not that impressed. They can show Direct X25 on the next build of the game for all I care, it still bores me. Problem is developers are following the trends of the industry for money instead of making a fresh game.
The modern war fps is a tired genre. Same thing happened with WWII games a few years back. I am more excited about games like Prey 2. I absolutely loved the first one. Very immersive, great story, and score. Plus it was unique. You could say the same about portal 2, I could go on.
Anyway, graphical benchmarks only go but so far. Anyone remember the way they felt half way through the first half life? The graphics are a surface level feature that only takes a game but so far.
There are many other factors that make a great game. Story, sound, replay value, voice acting, score, original game play.
Just my two cents.
It seems a bit strange to need something to be different to like it. Unique is good, but it shouldn't be a prerequisite. Otherwise we'd abandon every genre before it could be perfected. Frankly, this is one of the first modern-age warfare games I've been excited about since Desert Combat in 1942, and BF2 after that. I like war shooters that simulate war, not twitch shooters that happen to be set in modern times. Battlefield tends to do that.
The factors that make a game great depend upon what that game is trying to do. For RPGs I want story, voice acting, character development, and emotional depth. For FPS games I want sound, graphical polish, smooth gameplay, and atmosphere. For strategy games I want balance, race/faction variety, and intuitive controls. For MMOs I want plenty of content, interesting and challenging boss fights, and social features. The list goes on. A game doesn't need to be "different" to be great. No one looking forward to Battlefield cares about its story (might change when we actually play it) or its originality.Edited by Narzon - 7/23/11 at 3:23pm