What FH2 is/should be about?

[Kubador]

OOpsey, I forgot to add in my post (was kinda sleepy) that by fun I mean light and easy to grasp. I often seen devs put fun on the same line as arcade (or at least very close). And I mean the good side of arcade like symplifying things. So, fun = easy basics, "light" type of gameplay, things that are not overcomplicated but juuust right.

Sorry for confusion. Valid poll.

[FatJoe]

The way I look at how FH2 should work like is a balance between Fun and Serious ( you could call it arcade vs realism ) with a focus on historical accuracy.

The Balance between Fun and Serious is in this case basically taking enough steps away from the Battlefields Arcade-ism, to be distinctively different from it, but not running away too far from it's fun part. FH2 shouldn't be annoyingly realistic, which is one of the reasons why you don't see some of the things that have been suggested for it, for example, co-operated tanks (one player driver, another player gunner) as that often tends to cause confusion and frustration for the players.

Fh2 shouldn't force newcomers into a steep learning curve nor restrict his abilities to play the way he wants to. Instead it should provide the ability to expand into "minigames" within FH2 ( a good example would be the artillery or spotting ) or reward the player for teamworking ( through a score, those uninterested in their score could feel rewarded for helping their team out ).

FH2 also provides the player the ability to learn how to use his weapon. In that sense, a skilled rifleman can drop an enemy from a very long distance but instead be quite unfamiliar on how to handle a submachine gun in close quarter. Also a tanker learns which shell type to use against different targets ( HE for infantry, AP for Armor ) as well as pick the right target for the size of the tanks gun etc. ( Fighting a Tiger in a Vickers Light Tank simply will not work out )

The focus on historical accuracy means that the map should in most cases be historically correct in terms of weapons, vehicles, look and preferably layout. Balance and gameplay should come before historical accuracy though, in reasonable terms atleast. But it also provides some sort of an educational media of the weapons and vehicles and battles fought in the second world war. Personally, I've been learning alot about WWII while playing FH through the years.


I hope this sheds some light on what some of us devs are thinking how FH2 is/should be like


as for the poll.. I voted All of the above as it really comes down to all of it, but I'm quite interested to see how many have chosen Historically Accuracy

[Hockeywarrior]

I think immersion is the best one word answer. FH1 did a great job of making me feel like I was THERE in the battle, even if it wasn't technically the most "realistic" game in the world. It made you feel like you were a part of something epic in a historic sense, which also contributed greatly to the fun factor. I think immersion is really the most important thing that FH2 should strive for.

[Raziel]

I think immersion is the best one word answer. FH1 did a great job of making me feel like I was THERE in the battle, even if it wasn't technically the most "realistic" game in the world. It made you feel like you were a part of something epic in a historic sense, which also contributed greatly to the fun factor. I think immersion is really the most important thing that FH2 should strive for.

Same here! Voted for immersion. Yesterday was walking around PHL on an empty local server (testing) I felt really peaceful and calm going around the fields and hedgegrow! I've always loved the detail that FH2 devs put into this Mod!

[Josh094]

Historical accuracy, which is why it is the only game I play.

[Lonewolf051]

I'm with Joe, that's EXACTLY what FH2 should be about, better than Battlefield, but not "annoyingly realistic" its the perfect concept. I remember the Brothers in Arms devs think the same way, the BIA series is about authenticity, historical accuracy, geat fun, teamwork, and a true story, realism is there, but, like FH2, not in ridiculous ammounts to make it un-fun. That's why I think the FH2 devs and the Gearbox devs are so closely related, they have a keen eye for getting their history correct, (their knowledge of weapons, battles, command, uniforms, tactics, vehicles, ect), putting you on an authentic, immersive battlefield, and keeps the fun going all the time, its just a winning combination.

[Ts4EVER]

Yeah but other than in BiA our weapons have an effective range exceeding 10m, not all Fallschirmjägers run around with scoped FG42s and our hedges don't look like they were designed for the sole purpose of allowing a videogame character to use them one day

[Natty]

BiA has standardized props because it is a cover-shooter and nothing else. BiA is only about cover and flanking, and they do it very well. They dont go out and try to be everything. If we paid more attention to the way we place walls and other covers, the infantry experience in FH2 would be a lot better.....
all props are made for the videogame characters to use... only videogame characters exist in the videogame world 

[luftwaffe.be]

fun.

honestly, what is the point of playing a boring game ? If a player can't see the fun in the game, why would he continue to play it ? he wouldn't. He would simply dump it.

It's the primary key for every game : fun. All the rest is second place which can contribute to "fun" and is depended for what the player experiences as  fun, since there are many categories of gamers, all with their own definition.

nonetheless the primary goal of this (and every other video game) is about bringing fun to your target public (in our case mostly WWII enthusiasts). All other factors come in second place, but contribute to this game, since it is designed for this audience. 

[Ts4EVER]

BiA has standardized props because it is a cover-shooter and nothing else. BiA is only about cover and flanking, and they do it very well. They dont go out and try to be everything. If we paid more attention to the way we place walls and other covers, the infantry experience in FH2 would be a lot better.....
all props are made for the videogame characters to use... only videogame characters exist in the videogame world  

Personally I always thought that BiA leveldesign felt really artificial and boring. The fact that they had the suppression effect was nifty. That you couldn't hit shit with your gun and the ranges were so horribly deflated sucked however.

edit: for example compare their version of PHL with yours, for example the farm bit. I suppose you placed these ditches and hedges so people can outflank the German position and imo it works nice. BiA just took a perfectly normal meadow and filled it up with a weird labyrinth of hedges that makes no sense whatsoever.

[Natty]

yes but BiA is a singleplayer game...  It is like designing a roller-coaster, how fun would a roller-coaster be if people could just go where they wanted with it? it wouldnt be a rollercoaster anymore it would be just a normal cart that you drive.....
When you design something (clothes, games, movies whatever) you decide what it should be and you do that thing good. Try to do everything and it is = fail. BiA wanted to give players a linear ride with some tactical elements like flanking and suppression, they succeeded. If they went megalomaniac and added open world, vehicles etc they would be a pale BF clone.

[Ts4EVER]

When I think rollercoaster ride I think call of Duty, not BiA. And CoD levels (single or multiplayer) look a lot more believable than BiAs.

[Fuchs]

The whole feeling BiA RtH30 gave me was amazing, it felt good. The only time I had this feeling again was on Natty's map PHL where sometimes you can even flank enemies through a ditch around hedgerows etc.

Thats a huge compliment Natty, I loved the first BiA's.

[Natty]

thanks  

When I think rollercoaster ride I think call of Duty, not BiA. And CoD levels (single or multiplayer) look a lot more believable than BiAs.

yes look believable. but that is a different thing alltogether. CoD and BiA are two different games. BiA didnt want "believable" levels, they wanted to make cover-based levels, where everything evolves around how you supress the enemy and then flank them. How "believable" it is doesnt matter, as long as it is fun to supress and flank.

In a MP game you need to be able to flank alot more, thus the way bigger maps. Killing bots is about overcoming the designed paths in the map. There is no difference between solving a puzzle in Portal and finding the solution to getting through a part in BiA. BiA is only about figuring out the weak places in the german defenses, and use it. MP is about a million other things.. come on, you know this  

[Ts4EVER]

thanks  

When I think rollercoaster ride I think call of Duty, not BiA. And CoD levels (single or multiplayer) look a lot more believable than BiAs.

yes look believable. but that is a different thing alltogether. CoD and BiA are two different games. BiA didnt want "believable" levels, they wanted to make cover-based levels, where everything evolves around how you supress the enemy and then flank them. How "believable" it is doesnt matter, as long as it is fun to supress and flank.

In a MP game you need to be able to flank alot more, thus the way bigger maps. Killing bots is about overcoming the designed paths in the map. BiA is only about figuring out the weak places in the german defenses, and use it. MP is about a million other things.. come on, you know this 

Well I could never look past how unnatural, forced and repetetive it felt.