Is it just me, or did Battlefield Heroes' release yesterday come seemingly out of nowhere? A few months ago, I couldn't turn around without seeing an interview or a news story about the open beta. Then, nothing. Then, with almost no fanfare or immediate pre-release hype, it spontaneously becomes available for free download.
In case you haven't been following it, Heroes is a fully featured cross between classic Battlefield 1942 gameplay (complete with control points, planes, and Nazis) and the free-to-play, microtransaction-based structure of titles such as Maple Story. You can download the entire game for free from the official site, but you'll have to shell out a few dollars if you want your character to look more distinctive than the other grunts running around in Heroes' zany, cartoonish version of World War II.
But does it work? Does the free-to-play structure and emphasis on persistent, RPG-like character building work harmoniously with the original Battlefield gameplay?
Hit the jump for my personal answers to those questions.
Battlefield Heroes (PC)
Developer: EA Digital Illusions CE
Publisher: EA
Released: June 25, 2009
MSRP: $0.00 (optional clothing, expressions, and XP widgets can be bought via microtransactions)
Battlefield Heroes is based on an awfully compelling concept: it seeks to merge the grindy, microtransaction-driven addictiveness of games like Maple Story with the considerably deeper and faster-paced action provided by the Battlefield franchise.
Unfortunately, it doesn't work as well as it could.
My first hour or so with Heroes was a bizarrely pleasant one: upon seeing the numerous character customization options and skill trees, I experienced a mixture of fear and attraction. My mind was filled with conflicting emotions -- "oh God, I hope I don't get addicted to this and spend the next three weeks building my character" and "oh man, I can't wait to get addicted to this and spend the next three weeks building a sweet-ass character." There were emotes and clothing available for purchase with "Battlefunds" (the Heroes equivalent of Microsoft Points that must be bought with actual Earth currency), and new weapons buyable with the free Valor Points players earn by doing well in combat.
The numerous abilities available for the three classes, each with the capacity to be upgraded five times, implied a depth of gameplay that would keep me enthralled for weeks. The temporary nature of the buyable items (health recharges have to be purchased, all weapons last less than a month, and all cosmetic items last a month unless you pay three times their initial price to permanently own them) suggested I would need to keep coming back to it over the next few months. The classic Battlefield gameplay revolving around capturing control points and depleting the opposing team's respawn tickets seemed warm, inviting. An hour after first booting up Heroes, I was fully prepared to devote a hefty chunk of time to plumbing its depths.
My first character, a Commando (basically a cross between a sniper and a spy), was pretty satisfying. Characters earn Valor Points and experience points by dealing damage or capturing flags, which results in a feeling of constant reward. Did you shoot a guy once in the leg, only to have him turn around and annihilate you with five shotgun blasts? Don't sweat it -- you still got some XP and cash. Even though I sucked for the first ten minutes of my first game, I still felt like I was constantly building my character and reaping rewards from my own ineptitude. In a few minutes, I had enough Valor Points to try out two new weapons, each far more useful than my default guns. I felt progressively more powerful with every new ability I earned. Things were good.
Four hours and two new characters later, the picture was less rosy.
It takes a while for Heroes' flaws to make themselves apparent, but they're impossible to ignore once they do. Even though there are only three classes, for instance, the Commandos still feel irritatingly overpowered. Their sniper rifles do incredible damage, they can remain permanently invisible to anyone more than a few feet away from them, and they seem to move faster than the other two classes.
Or what about the fact that you cannot switch teams or classes during a game? When creating a character, whatever faction and character class you choose for him are his for life. Initially, this makes sense: the beauty of RPG-esque character building is that for all the experience points and ability points and cash you sink into the guy, he's yours. That character is a permanent symbol of all the time you put into the game; he's a walking testament to your efforts. But in a multiplayer combat game, it's not enough to just enter a server with a fixed character and assume things will be all right.
What if you find that your entire team is made up of Soldiers, but you need some Commandos to take out a guard post? In any other game, you'd simply switch classes, take the guard post yourself, and switch back. Or, what if one team is slaughtering the other team simply because they've got better players? In a regular multiplayer shooter, the teams would automatically rebalance in order to make things fair. In Heroes, you're locked into the same team configurations no matter what, unless a huge number of people leave and are replaced by new people. This almost entirely reduces any possibility for cooperative, strategic gameplay, especially when you consider the fact that a lot of players seem like they're just out to get as many XP and Valor Points as they can, the rest of the team be damned.
The game constantly struggles with satisfying both the needs of a persistent, stat-based RPG and those of a compelling multiplayer shooter without ever combining them into a coheisve whole. For instance, players take a metric asston of damage before dying, because that way you can score lots of experience and valor points by blasting away at them. After a few hours of play, however, the seeming ineffectiveness of every machine gun or explosive begins to get frustrating and tedious. I threw three grenades at a Gunner, then shot him four times with a shotgun, and watched in furious horror as he killed me with less than ten HP left.
There are planes, because this is a Battlefield game, but all the control points are surrounded by buildings or trees (perhaps to force players in close proximity to one another so they can pick away at one another with close range weaponry and get a ton of points), thus making the planes effectively useless except as a means of transportation.
There are only three maps with more presumably on the way in order to keep players coming back on a quasiregular basis, constantly eyeing the new gestures and clothing items in the shop, forever tempted to open their wallets and engage the microtransaction model head-on. But these maps become downright boring after a few hours of play, and even the satisfying XP system and legitimately interesting abilities (like a Soldier powerup which makes your SMG fire incendiary rounds for a limited time, or a Gunner perk that allows you to eat all nearby explosives and convert them into health) can't save the core gameplay from degenerating into unfortunate tedium after you've experimented with each class and their different weapons.
On a slightly different note, I want to discuss one aspect of Heroes' microtransaction system.There's some legitimate concern to be had over the game's buyable XP "widgets" that, for a few real-life dollars, will double the amount of XP or Valor Points you get while playing for a certain period of time. One could rightfully claim that such an item rewards those players with deep pockets over those who rely on personal skill. As it turns out, however, it never really felt like an issue to me. I felt very little compulsion to keep playing the game after sufficiently experimenting with all three characters, and I subsequently just didn't have time to get frustrated that some dude was earning twice as much XP as I was just because he plopped down a few extra bucks. The game gets dull far beforesuch larger questions of paying money for character power have the chance to become relevant.
However, the game's replayability may definitely become more of an issue as time goes on. When newer, cooler weapons and items start popping up in the shop, and more varied maps become available, perhaps the cash-for-levels system will become a legitimate issue. This will also mean, however, that the actual act of playing the game will become a much more varied, enjoyable, and longterm experience than it currently is -- a fair trade, perhaps.
Opinions are divided on Battlefield Heroes' revenue format, but I was honestly hoping the whole microtransaction structure would work to its favor. An ideal version of Heroes would be as consistently addictive and intrinsically satisfying as a mindless grindfest like Maple Story, while still providing actual depth and intelligence provided by its essential FPS gameplay. As it stands, however, the game we've been presented with works against itself more often than it does not. Perhaps the inevitable flood of subsequent map, weapon and shop updates will provide more depth and replayability, but the I also fear the design may possess some intrinsic contradictions that no patch can fix. Battlefield Heroes is a highly recommended download if only because it is both free and a total blast for the first few hours, but you might be surprised at just how quick and easy it is to fall out of love with it.
Score: 4.0

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.
EN GARDE
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.