Nice enough review, Not going to try the game.
Looks too much like TF2, and I despise that Memetic piece of shit.
You can balance out the classes all you want, but at the end of the day each class is going to end up being weak against another. The only way to really balance a game of class based PvP would be to have specific numbers of each class per match, which means potentially longer queue times.
On a different note, I'm disappointed in most of dtoiders. Many of you have simple and over aggressive minds. I think it's time to move on.
Well, crap, I was looking forward to this game. How could free battlefield possibly go wrong?
Ah well, all the issues you posted are solvable, so hopefully the dev cycle hasn't ended yet, and nor should it with this sort of structure. Constant dev keeps people coming back.
...no, there's really no way to redeem myself after that comment.
Then again, the second I realised I'd been shooting the same guy for 2 minutes, who didn't seem to notice, pretty much ensured I'd never touch the game again.
Good to see it's still the same after the beta.
I don't dare to argue with the great one (anthony) as his superior intellect will pummel me into a pulp. But is it really necessary to review a free game?
Jim told me to stop being a pussy and review it, though, so I did.
People will get this regardless of any review simply because its free to play.
The first name I entered greeted me with a "Character Created!" screen and right below that a nondescript error about my name of choice. I went through about 15 more names receiving the same error, and even a couple first and last name combos that at least had the courtesy to remind me names must be alphanumeric (no spaces, and thus no first and last names). I can only assume names must be unique and my choices were already taken.
I finally entered "Comeonletmeplay" or something of the sort and it was accepted. Having never played Battlefield before I hopped into the tutorial. Pretty basic. Half the button commands it told me to do stuff did not appear on my screen ("Press to enter a vehicle."). Helpful. I finished the tutorial (after realizing I can't fly planes with a keyboard and mouse) and decided it was time to join a game. I made it into one match that I was booted from before even loading the level. Every other time I was told a match could not be found. My options were to try again, pick a new character, or create a new character. I can only assume the last two options existed because my team's side was full. ??? I don't have any desire to try again.
Oh well it just came out and it's free, I'll probably stick with it to see if it gets better. It's definitely one of the better free to play games out there.
Huh?
I was playing on my explorer browser yesterday. You have to set Explorer as your default browser (Internet options > Programes > Make Default).
Simples.
Despite my qualms, the most interesting part of the review is the notion that the RPG mindsets of grinding xp and getting loot are not at all compatible with the cooperation requirements of the team based shooter. Isn't it interesting that these adopted play styles, molded and shaped by our own gaming experiences, would result in a game where the player's expectations and own personal goals are seemingly in conflict with the game itself? It goes to show how powerful the "training process" is in games. Heroes seems to be a game with different players seeing completely different games.
But the way, there have actually been four maps since before it when open beta, not two.
If a game is a piece of shit, people may not want to waste the bandwidth and time downloading it. The review (that thing above the score) and the 4/10 suggest that installation would be swiftly followed by removal, resulting in an all around waste of time.
I see what you're saying, but if people downloaded every single free game ever made, we'd be busy 24/7 for months on end. When someone gives Cave Story a 10/10, and BF: Heroes a 4/10, it means "check out Cave Story, and only the biggest shooter fans will like BF: Heroes".
And as for the commandos being over powered, it all depends on who you are going up against, if you are a high level commando going against a low level soldier you are going to destroy them, however if that soldier has created their character right, and got the types of perks to counter commandos, then the stealth will mean nothing to a well trained player. In beta I came across many many people playing other classes that became a challenge for me to fight against as a commando simply because of the skills they were using against me.
Why no mention of the mission system?.. like the missions you can run through.. which can pretty much eliminate the thought of micro transactions for players that just want to play the game and don't care for personal aesthetic, because the missions will give you a mountain of XP & Valor Points for your perks so you could easily match up with anyone who purchased them via micro transaction.
And the whole team balance issue, even if the teams were even, and one side had nothing but good players and the other side had shitty players.. no game really balances past the point of having even numbers.. so if one team is better than the other that's just the way of the game.. get better at it. My friends and I in the beta would team up with each other, join a server and talk on ventrilo so we could work our way in controlling the maps in BF Heroes, and it worked very well for us, it was really no different than the coop experience that bf1942 gave us.
Now sure you are locked to one side, given the character you use to keep that rpg feel and I can understand not being able to switch teams may suck but that's the intention of the game. You go into any rpg style game where you play with other people, you usually get your friends to join one specific side so you guys can work together in the game. Its really just the same approach with this game.. you get a friend into the game, have him choose the side you are on, you join a server and help him gain experience by playing with you.
The game really is not all that bad, sure it has some imperfections at the moment, but considering its free I can let that slide. It's definitely a game like other rpg-shooters, that requires more than just a few hours of play to get to know and understand, it took me a week or so before I really got into the swing of the game and started to understand how each class worked and what their abilities were. In terms of it being fun, well that's up to each person.. if you enjoyed the crazy shenanigans of 1942, and like the approach cod4 took with the perk system, you may like bfheroes. If that isn't your style of play.. you probably wont get into all that much.
Really it's quite bad, it feels more like an RPG with light shooter elements than a proper shooting game. The characters are slow and floaty, you have weapons and "spells" on a skill timer, and weapons lack any real impact, just draining someone's HP until one person dies.
Oh and the sound effects. Good god the sound effects...
Also there are no valid comparisons to TF2 to be made with this game at all. Not in the slightest.
"Why no mention of the mission system?.. like the missions you can run through.. which can pretty much eliminate the thought of micro transactions for players that just want to play the game and don't care for personal aesthetic, because the missions will give you a mountain of XP & Valor Points for your perks so you could easily match up with anyone who purchased them via micro transaction."
Really? The missions I got primarily gave me less than 200 valor points at a time, which became kinda pointless once I reached my max 999 VP and had already bought all the weapons I needed.
Despite my qualms, the most interesting part of the review is the notion that the RPG mindsets of grinding xp and getting loot are not at all compatible with the cooperation requirements of the team based shooter. Isn't it interesting that these adopted play styles, molded and shaped by our own gaming experiences, would result in a game where the player's expectations and own personal goals are seemingly in conflict with the game itself? It goes to show how powerful the "training process" is in games. Heroes seems to be a game with different players seeing completely different games.
For a money grubbing jew (AKA, completely broke) like me who will absolutely take no part in any micro-transaction whatsoever, is it worth playing? Will I feel seriously handicapped (Not gameplay-wise) or will I still have a good time?
But this again was back in the closed beta, I'm not sure if they changed the xp count & vp count gained by the missions at all from when I last played. I was going to check it out in a few to see what else they changed.
I haven't spent any cash on it and probably won't in the forseeable future, but I'm still enjoying aspects of it. I mean, hypothetically I might have more fun if my character was wearing a Jack Harkness overcoat rather than the default attire, but it's not a huge deal.
dyslixec:
Aha. Well, I really hope they release some new, more expensive weapons to justify those missions, because as it stands I've got like 1200 VP and nothing to spend it on.

surf dtoid with 

Rising (10+)
People you follow















follow


