Printable View
Many fans are organizing private games via facebook wall. I think the biggest mistake they have made was removing this feature. They are organizing them because matchmaking isn't working. I know that for playing game, you just have to click the button in the beta that says private match, and you can play it from there, but really not get this? Anyone have any idea or any suggestion on this? Really need to know about this.
If IG included some way of searching for private games the "dead room" glitch wouldn't have been much of an issue, and people would have been able to play at least play the game, and enjoy it to some extent. I hope IG learns a lesson from this fiasco, and at least during post release add some form of a custom game browser. Even with the custom game list it would still be hard to start and stay in the games because of disconnects freezes, and errors.
If they released from 2 then everyone would expect there to be a custom games browser, as that’s one of the main reason from was so great in the first place. Of course people would still complain if there wasn’t one, I hated playing ranked objective on RFOM (because of the number of laark spawns + ammo boxes), hence why we always used to play unranked objective with the laark/ arc charger/ 40mms disabled. The thing that annoys me most is that there is no valid explanation as to why IG removed it in the first place - and don’t say "because they want people to go into matchmaking"- because I do not wish to be forced to play with certain rules or play ranked matches when I don’t want to.
I don’t know much about this but, from a business perspective, I think devs want you to play their game long enough to where you will buy the next one but not for years and years. The custom browser keeps some playing their games for 5 years. What benefit is there to them financially to have people playing their game for that long. They have to keep more servers up and running. That’s just my thought, don’t know what anyone else thoughts.
Quality expansion packs would be quite beneficial. Especially since server lists ensure that those packs will actually be put to use. I'm not talking about just maps. Actual expansions that come with new weapons and maps and modes and all other goodies. Like Vietnam [BC2] or Escalation [MAG] or Warhawk's expansions. FoM and R2 didn't have great matchmaking and the DLC maps never really got used in ranked. Well, IG did fix that in FoM with a patch. They dropped R2 though.
Why should I waste $60[+tax] on a game of poor-quality (in comparison to others) that the developer/publisher does not want to last for more than a year? I enjoy getting bang for my buck. Warhawk, FoM, MAG, Killzone 2. Great games, no regrets in purchasing them, great features, I spent a good amount of time on Warhawk, FoM and MAG, and had I purchased KZ2 when it first released, I'd have spent a long time on it too. Heck, I purchased KZ2 very late and I still bought all the DLC packs to support Guerrilla for the great job.
If they want people to buy the sequel and not stay on the previous title, here's an idea, refine the formula from the previous one. That way it stays the same at the core, but makes improvements where needed, and it would attract people that are sticking the first one. I don't like CoD, and I don't like Halo, but I can see that they try to refine their formula. Don't make a sequel of lower-quality than a previous title. And definitely do not change a successful formula.