安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語（日文）
한국어（韓文）
ไทย（泰文）
Български（保加利亞文）
Čeština（捷克文）
Dansk（丹麥文）
Deutsch（德文）
English（英文）
Español - España（西班牙文 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希臘文）
Français（法文）
Italiano（義大利文）
Bahasa Indonesia（印尼語）
Magyar（匈牙利文）
Nederlands（荷蘭文）
Norsk（挪威文）
Polski（波蘭文）
Português（葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙）
Português - Brasil（葡萄牙文 - 巴西）
Română（羅馬尼亞文）
Русский（俄文）
Suomi（芬蘭文）
Svenska（瑞典文）
Türkçe（土耳其文）
tiếng Việt（越南文）
Українська（烏克蘭文）
回報翻譯問題
討論區規矩與守則
68 
檢舉此篇文章
The devs are aware that they failed to create an actual World War II experience. They've sighted this fact as the reason why tanks and the halftrack lack the ability to turn out.
Because the game has no established frontline, enemy forces can effectively go anywhere they want, because of this, gurillas, using outposts and forward garries like VC tunnels would shoot out crewmen trying to look outside their vehicles, from seemingly anywhere, bypassing the armor entirely, and defeating the point of the feature. And as I've said before, they are lazy, so they never bothered adding the feature for the halftrack, even if it crippled it's function, because the halftrack isn't as important as tanks. Same reason AT cannons can't move. There is no technical reason why it can't be done. It's just a pain in a butt to code, and the devs don't care about AT cannons that much. they just solve the problem by handing out rocket launchers to every 6th rifleman like it's the cold war.
Course, that decision did bite the Russians in the ass, but the Russians like everything else, were an after thought, even though their inclusion was planned long in advanced. If the devs had to foresight to see their own mistakes, I'd not be talking about them right now.
All of this is obvious to me, because I just so happen to know how these vehicles work, and have played other video games with these same features. Nothing in HLL is original, but the devs don't know that. So they walk blindly into every project as if it's a new concept.
I saw these halftracks were going to be a disaster 2 years ago, pointed it out directly to the devs on discord, and then they went and did exactly what I said not to, and the exact thing I said would happened happened.
I ♥♥♥♥ you not, these devs are tactically retarded. They just color by numbers, like it's 2005 again, thinking their hot stuff because all these console peasants from the gamer equivalent of N Korea think team-play is some sort of novel new concept. The things that I hear people praise this game for is sad. I wish I could introduce some of these newbs to the old classics. They think video games were invented by EA and DICE. They have no idea just how old and decrepit this game, and the industry in general is.
EDIT: I also would like to ask, because I read a good bit of your post but not all of them, you seem to know about a lot of different things involving this game... If BM never sold, do you think the game would be in a better state or worse?
EDIT: Obviously you do remember it because you said it was a genuine joke.
Edit: Wait that was about the The Landkreuzer P. 1000 Ratte that was an April Fool's joke
Ok I see it was an April Fool's joke. Musta missed it
This game is just BF2, but there have been many games before and after that had some very interesting features. Battleground Europe, Foxhole, and other persistent worlds that create full scale wars that you can contribute to communally. There have been innovative combat mechanics from squad based RTS games like Full Spectrum Warrior, and Company of Heroes which happens to have been the cited inspiration for HLL.
Other games have innovated on cover based shooting, such as the Gears of War and Red Orchestra series. And there are several sims that have set the gold standard for tank, infantry, and air combat respectively: War Thunder, ARMA, and DCS have all lifted the bar.
Combine attributes from any 3 of those games, and your guaranteed at least some success, even if you're too creatively bankrupt to add anything original. Of course, taking features from 3 purpose built war sims, and mixing them together on a single engine that doesn't specialize in anything is a tall order in and of itself. Each game has deficiencies due to the fact they focus on one element of war, not all 3.
Never heard of Generals, but I think they were probably talking about the prospective Campaign mode. I suspect it will be a minimalist tournament mode, where they just take several battles and tie them back to back with a score board that carries over from game to game... and nothing more. This game can barely fit the two platoons. Anything over the rank of Captain is a joke.
More features, more content, less polished graphics. Handles clunky, even for a tactical shooter. Like HLL it lacks formal organization, to the point where unless your part of a rigidly structured clan, you won't have any sort of WWII experience. It's just another generic shooter. Marginally better than HLL in some places, but the trash animations and older graphics take me out of it. Its not a role playing game, which sort of destroys the point of it being set in a historical period. It's too experimental, despite dealing with features that are decades old. None of these devs know what they are doing, they just take what other people have done and try and run with it, without understanding why it was done that way, or what was left undone.
There are games out there that are formally community built, like EVE online, but even those games, have innate structures built into them to govern player to player interactions, and encourage and discourage certain behavior, for the purpose of fostering a certain type of gameplay loop. Those games have very open ended gameplay loops, but they do have structure. Bizarrely, HLL and PS have even less structure than those community based games, despite being modeled after a very particular style of combat, with very formal rules and structures.
This is not a design choice, but the lack there of. This is player-choice, turned inside out. Rather than the game providing a the player with a limited number of choices, the game instead negates the act of choosing by refusing to pose a question. The player is just dumped into a combat zone with a flag standing in front of him and a flag behind him, and told fight to control the flags. That's the whole game. If that doesn't sound like WWII to you, then you already get my point.
haven't mentioned flame throwers in five months... but they're "working" on those too.
It's too delicate of a balance for these devs to get right. When they play test, the only thing they look for are bugs, they don't give a ♥♥♥♥ about balance or how these tools change combat.