I don't want any progression in this game.

  • 65 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Edited by Mikemcn (7018 posts) -

Call of Duty 4 may have told us that people like earning xp for shotgun kills, knife kills and blowing up cars, which is why Bad Company followed in it's footsteps. But is there really any need for unlockables, or xp? Battlefield 2, has continued to be popular despite its minimal amount of unlockables. You didn't get xp for every kill and what xp you did get wasn't thrown in front of you, it was buried within your stats section. I doubt people have stuck with the game because theyve spent the last 5 years trying to unlock that L35A1 for the Medic.  Alot of people think that you need a carrot on a stick in a modern shooter. But I disagree. Its fun for awhile, but constantly feeling like you need to come in first every round so you can see all the content a game has to offer as soon as possible, is extremely lame, and at this point is overdone.
 
I finally unlocked everything in Bad Company 2 on PC. And for the 50 or so hours it took me to do so, I wasn't having a fantastic time. I felt like every time i got sniped I was being cheated, and that BC2 was a frustrating pile of garbage, I would never get to see all the weapons I wanted to see because the game just wasnt fun. But i soldiered on, and now that I have everything, im actually enjoying the game, Ive put in an extra 30 hours in since then and have loved every minute of it. Sometimes I want to play sniper and fail at killing people because I suck at that class, other times I just want to run around with a Sabot Loaded Saiga. Not because I HAVE to, to get something new, but because I WANT to. I think BF3 should buck the trend and remove the concept of unlockables and progression . I still want some sort of kit customization but not much more than what we saw in BF2.
 
 Anyone else agree?

#2 Posted by JJWeatherman (14570 posts) -

I think at this point, some kind of in-your-face progression is necessary to keep peoples attention. I don't think you need weapon unlocks to do that though. Just moving up in rank would be enough. 

#3 Posted by Death_Unicorn (2838 posts) -

I believe if you are playing a game to unlock a gun, you are playing for the wrong reasons. Having all the tools at your disposal so you can have fun is great and I really wish more games could go back to that route. So, yes, I agree, and hope there is very little progression in Battlefield 3.

#4 Posted by Spoonman671 (4769 posts) -

I have no problem with experience systems and persistent leveling, but I don't like giving out points for kills on objective-based modes.

#5 Posted by s7evn (1072 posts) -

I think BF2 innovated the system and Call of Duty 4 expanded on it. When you ranked up in that you got to choose a weapon unlock, which is probably the way I would like to see it done if they do it for BF3.

#6 Posted by Malakhii (1443 posts) -
@Death_Unicorn said:
" I believe if you are playing a game to unlock a gun, you are playing for the wrong reasons. Having all the tools at your disposal so you can have fun is great and I really wish more games could go back to that route. So, yes, I agree, and hope there is very little progression in Battlefield 3. "
You make too much sense for this to be true. They're gonna go the full COD route, go console heavy and make me cry in the process. Instead of keeping people hooked with awesome game play, It's gonna be with stupid unlocks. 
#7 Edited by Death_Unicorn (2838 posts) -
@Malakhii: Sense, a companies worst enemy! 
 
Yeah, sadly, they will probably go the COD route.
#8 Posted by adoggz (2070 posts) -

god I hope they don't put it in. I really like cod 4 but having to unlock stuff was the thing I hated most about that game. I just wanna play with the guns I like, not have to play for 1, 5 ,10, 20, 100000 hours to unlock the damn gun that I want.

#9 Posted by Liam_mk (290 posts) -

I AGREE.

#10 Posted by nick69 (625 posts) -
@Malakhii said:
" @Death_Unicorn said:
" I believe if you are playing a game to unlock a gun, you are playing for the wrong reasons. Having all the tools at your disposal so you can have fun is great and I really wish more games could go back to that route. So, yes, I agree, and hope there is very little progression in Battlefield 3. "
You make too much sense for this to be true. They're gonna go the full COD route, go console heavy and make me cry in the process. Instead of keeping people hooked with awesome game play, It's gonna be with stupid unlocks.  "
Alas, it will be a sad day for pc gamers across the world. 
#11 Edited by MrKlorox (11209 posts) -

Whhhaaaaat?? Battlefield started the whole progression thing. If anything they need to make it more like RPG skill trees that branch instead of linear like MW2 or BC2.
 
BF3 needs to reinvent the concept. Asking for it to not be in the game is asking for a not-battlefield. Go away!
 
I don't want any lowest common denominators ruining the BF franchise. But tough shit, eh?

#12 Posted by Rockanomics (1150 posts) -

I'd wish for it to just go back to BF2 if anything, but that's probably just the nostalgia talking. I had so much fun working towards all those pins and ribbons.

#13 Posted by Meteora (5787 posts) -

Call of Duty 4 just about revolutionized or made popular of persistent character development. Very many shooters now feature this one way or another, because it seems that wallets agree upon that people like having some progression in a game. The way how it was handled made it so people weren't overwhelmed with weapon options and be baffled on what to choose from, and also makes people want to come back to it. 
 
As long as the game is fun, isn't frustrating and doesn't turn you off, persistent character leveling is great. Not to mention, in modern or historic shooters, most guns tend to be reskins or have very few different attributes, so you're really not missing out on a whole lot. Though it should be fair to say, I haven't actually played BF2 before, so I'm not sure how unlocking worked in that game.

#14 Posted by CaptainObvious (3000 posts) -

I disagree, I love me some unlocks.

#15 Edited by MrKlorox (11209 posts) -

I say there needs to be more unlocks than ever, 100. 4 classes, 5 branches with 5 skills/gadgets/weapons in each. Give one unlock token per rank up that you must spend on that class' unlocks, and have total 100 ranks. 2142 did it the best so far with 4 classes, 2 branches, and 5 or so items in each branch (with 6 universal, passive "perks" that are always equipped, and 4 usable squad leader items). You actually had specialized classes.
 
The specialization was what was missing from the Bad Company series, and was a solution to having 7 classes. You could have like four different support class soldiers all with different skillsets in 2142. Unlike in BC2 where all engineers, for example, are basically the same. BC2 is practically just guns which 2142 had very very few of. Just having a dude shoot bullets faster or farther (new gun) doesn't count as a specialized version of that class.
 
People, stop pretending BF2 is the only real BF game. 2142 was better in many many ways that should not be ignored.

#16 Posted by Kiro (288 posts) -

I don't mind as long as the weapons and perks you start with doesn't put you at a disadvantage against the people who've played for a while. It took way to long to unlock good perks in Bad Company 2, and most of the starting weapons were garbage.

#17 Posted by MrKlorox (11209 posts) -
@Kiro said:
" I don't mind as long as the weapons and perks you start with doesn't put you at a disadvantage against the people who've played for a while. It took way to long to unlock good perks in Bad Company 2, and most of the starting weapons were garbage. "
Well BF needs to have a better matchmaking system to begin with. It doesn't tend to put you in servers full of similarly ranked individuals. That's the problem, not the unlocks. Let those with many unlocks fight only eachother.
#18 Posted by Kiro (288 posts) -
@MrKlorox:  Sure, a good matchmaking system would be the best solution, but how likely is that to happen? I'm certainly not holding my breath. I'd rather have some balanced unlocks then the promise of a better matchmaking system.
#19 Posted by DrPockets000 (2859 posts) -

Progression and unlockable items are just the next "evolution" in the multiplayer shooter.  I think they're here to stay.  

#20 Posted by ch13696 (4582 posts) -

Did anyone play Battlefield 2142? Call of Duty 4 didn't make the system any better. It was BF 2142. All CoD 4 did was add perks and challenges.

#21 Posted by warxsnake (2650 posts) -

fucking want to promote this post kotaku style

Online
#22 Edited by Mikemcn (7018 posts) -
@CaptainObvious said:

" I disagree, I love me some unlocks. "

But wouldn't you rather have all the options for guns and such at the start, that way you can experiment however you want?
 
@DrPockets000 said:
" Progression and unlockable items are just the next "evolution" in the multiplayer shooter.  I think they're here to stay.   "

But why is that evolution? Games without unlockables can be just as addictive and popular, TF2 for example (I wouldn't call random Items unlocks)
#23 Posted by Meteora (5787 posts) -
@Mikemcn said:
" @CaptainObvious said:
" I disagree, I love me some unlocks. "
But wouldn't you rather have all the options for guns and such at the start, that way you can experiment however you want? "
Yeah, not unless there's more than 20 different weapons that overwhelm you with choices.
#24 Edited by MrKlorox (11209 posts) -
@Mikemcn said:

" @CaptainObvious said:

" I disagree, I love me some unlocks. "

But wouldn't you rather have all the options for guns and such at the start, that way you can experiment however you want? "
Nope. In fact I don't want a dozen almost identical guns. That's some MW2/BC2 bullshit that doesn't specify the class whatsoever.
 
@Meteora said:

" @Mikemcn said:

" @CaptainObvious said:
" I disagree, I love me some unlocks. "
But wouldn't you rather have all the options for guns and such at the start, that way you can experiment however you want? "
Yeah, not unless there's more than 20 different weapons that overwhelm you with choices. "
But HOW MUCH choice is there really? I'd rather have fewer drastically different weapons like 2142 had. There is a reason there aren't a thousand identical weapons.
 
Stackable character perks, gadgets, and consumable items are better things to have as unlocks than a bunch of guns that are all the same.
#25 Posted by Binman88 (3690 posts) -

You know, a lot of enjoyment in playing BF2 came from the stats for me. The ranking-up process really took a very long time, and it was nice to know everything you did was having an overall effect on your "character" in the background. Having said that, there weren't that many unlockables - only 7 weapons before the expansion. BF3 should keep it simple like BF2 - a handful of classes with their own unique abilities, and an unlockable weapon or two for each of those classes. 

#26 Edited by MrKlorox (11209 posts) -

They need to bring back passive perks that you do not choose at spawn as part of actual character progression. Also known as permanent stat adjustments. For example 2142 allowed you to permanently upgrade your running speed/stamina regeneration, carry an extra clip, and carry an extra thrown explosive.
 
They need to stop dipping their toes in the RPG style progression and dive in full splash. I want high level PVP action with abilities.
 
BF heroes' ability concept is sorta what I'm thinking, but much less ridiculous and cartoony. But instead of straight up abilities bound to your character, they're usable items that have effects other than just damage. Like the EMP grenade from 2142 for example. It wouldn't harm anybody, but it would stun vehicles for two seconds and slightly distort enemy soldiers' vision for five. Stuff like that.
 
Not guns.
 

NEW RULE: You can't complain about the unlock system in BF games in general terms without having played 2142.

#27 Posted by natetodamax (19219 posts) -

Call of Duty 4 did not exist when Battlefield 2 came out. It's likely that Battlefield 3 will have lots of progression and unlockables because in the age of Modern Warfare that seems like a requirement for first person shooters that want to keep people's attentions.

#28 Posted by Vinny_Says (5721 posts) -
@Mikemcn: Halo reach will attempt a no carrot on a stick system (except for pretty dresses) this fall. If the response is good maybe Dice will consider doing BF3 like BF2
#29 Posted by TwoOneFive (9459 posts) -

the progression shit is getting really old. its fucking annoying at this point. 

#30 Posted by ViciousReiven (822 posts) -

I like the idea of points, medals, and ranks, but I don't want to have to unlock every weapon. 
Even if the levels were just there for player to show off I think it'd still be cool, because who doesn't just love seeing that bar fill after every match?

#31 Posted by RandomInternetUser (6789 posts) -
@JJWeatherman: Yep, this is how I feel.  I would rather the weapons just be available when you start up the game for the first time.  Then you can level up and unlock things like camos and other customizations for your dude.  I've never "prestiged" in a call of duty game because I hate the feeling of having to level all the way back up to get my guns.
#32 Edited by Sjupp (1911 posts) -
@MrKlorox said:

" Whhhaaaaat?? Battlefield started the whole progression thing. If anything they need to make it more like RPG skill trees that branch instead of linear like MW2 or BC2.  BF3 needs to reinvent the concept. Asking for it to not be in the game is asking for a not-battlefield. Go away!  I don't want any lowest common denominators ruining the BF franchise. But tough shit, eh? "

Enemy slain! 
You Receive loot:
 
Level 47 Brown boots.
Equip: 6% of black boots.
 "Brown, sometimes black."
 
 
 

@Mikemcn

said:

"But why is that evolution? Games without unlockables can be just as addictive and popular, TF2 for example (I wouldn't call random Items unlocks) "

I say this is a pretty bad example. I find myself playing for these unlocks and I am sure many others do so. 
However, I completely agree with your point. I'd say Halo is a better example with purely cosmetic "unlocks". 
#33 Edited by Mikemcn (7018 posts) -
@Sjupp:  Of course, Halo is a good example of that.
 
And obviously BF3 will have all the unlocks and garbage that game companies think constitutes a shooter, and Im sure i'll dislike it that much more for it. And then when i finally get that last assault rifle, I can breath a sigh of relief, and have some actual fun.
#34 Posted by TheHT (11785 posts) -

Meh, I'm not all that into killing dudes and seeing "HEY CONGRATS YO KILLED A DUDE YO GET 25 XP" in the middle of my screen. But unlocks can be great incentive for trying other game modes and doing things for the team you may not otherwise.

#35 Posted by Malakhii (1443 posts) -
@Mikemcn said:
" @Sjupp:  Of course, Halo is a good example of that.  And obviously BF3 will have all the unlocks and garbage that game companies think constitutes a shooter, and Im sure i'll dislike it that much more for it. And then when i finally get that last assault rifle, I can breath a sigh of relief, and have some actual fun. "
Or you can restart from the beginning again, damn I hate unlocks in shooters. I have no problem with halo being purely cosmetic, it's lets you see who has the best shit and put in the time, and still lets you kick their ass on as even playing field.  
#36 Posted by Meteora (5787 posts) -
@Mikemcn: I think you're taking the unlock things too seriously. While it bugs me that I have to sometimes unlock certain guns which I probably don't think is nearly as fun (sniping), I wouldn't focus all my energies into unlocking every thing there is in the game.
#37 Posted by No0b0rAmA (1478 posts) -

As long as you don't have to unlock the medkit and defibulator as medic, or the wrench as engineer, its all good.
#38 Posted by hakooon (98 posts) -

Progression and unlockables make the game better and more fun, and keeps the game fresh. There was way too few unlocks in Bad Company 2 in my opinion. I unlocked everything for every class in a couple of days. Also, most of the weapons in the game are useless, and each class really only has one or two weapons that actually work.

#39 Posted by Meteora (5787 posts) -
@No0b0rAmA said:
" As long as you don't have to unlock the medkit and defibulator as medic, or the wrench as engineer, its all good. "
Yeah that part actually really pissed me off in BC2. I can understand some more advanced gadgets like mortar strike; but when you are a medic you expect to have the freaking tool to revive people, not level up to unlock it.
#40 Posted by AhmadMetallic (18954 posts) -

I TOTALLY FUCKING AGREE 
 
if i see any XP anywhere in BF3 i swear i'll do something very dramatic 
 
just ranking up. and one or two unlockable guns.. THATS FUCKING IT, DICE, YOU HEAR ? THATS IT !

#41 Edited by cooger10 (61 posts) -

I thought Bad Company 2 worked well. I unlocked all of the guns within a week. that's honestly not that long. And if your too bad. Buy em for $20 dollars. It's not a sole reason to play, it's just a little incentive.

#42 Posted by Jethuty (1023 posts) -
@CaptainObvious said:
" I disagree, I love me some unlocks. "
yeah same here.
 
 
Wtf is you guys problem?. Its a great way to keep people hooked and its not going away. Also it gives you something to look forward to. Seriously it doesnt take THAT long to level up.
#43 Posted by Meteora (5787 posts) -

I can't possibly imagine a FPS now that doesn't have any unlocking progression. Its all the rage now, because its been proven to successful and works well instead of overwhelming you with choices at the beginning. 
 
Granted, I don't know much about BF2's way of unlocking or progression or anything, but I still can't really see how it would work well without progression.

#44 Posted by Jayross (2365 posts) -

BF2 and 2142 both had progression and unlockable weapons and gadgets, BC2 is nothing new. I think it is a good system to encourage people to invest time in the game. It isn't going away anytime soon.

#45 Edited by MonetaryDread (2176 posts) -

I know that I have no interest in games where the only reward is knowing you improved your skill since last time. Give me some sort of unlocks, or leveling up system.

#46 Posted by Vinny_Says (5721 posts) -
the future of FPS games is not progression but skill trees, think about it.
#47 Posted by SeriouslyNow (8534 posts) -
@MrKlorox said:
" Whhhaaaaat?? Battlefield started the whole progression thing. If anything they need to make it more like RPG skill trees that branch instead of linear like MW2 or BC2.  BF3 needs to reinvent the concept. Asking for it to not be in the game is asking for a not-battlefield. Go away!  I don't want any lowest common denominators ruining the BF franchise. But tough shit, eh? "
THANK YOU.  COD4 rode on Battlefield's coat-tails in this regard.  You can bet DICE will innovate the unlocked progression model even further in BF3.
#48 Posted by Mikemcn (7018 posts) -

Why did you revive this topic, seriously? I don't even remember making it nor why I thought what I thought. I still think its a terrible idea, but whatever.

#49 Posted by Kyle (2325 posts) -

I thought the unlock system in BC2 was great. It was what kept me playing the game for as long as I did.
 
And yeah, Battlefield was doing unlockables in shooters way before almost anyone else so I don't even know what OP is smoking.

#50 Posted by SeriouslyNow (8534 posts) -
@Mikemcn said:
" Why did you revive this topic, seriously? I don't even remember making it nor why I thought what I thought. I still think its a terrible idea, but whatever. "
Dude why did you even make this topic in the first place?  It's a good idea not to post when you're high. :P

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.