I think more people should be open to the idea of scaling back graphics a bit to reduce development time and having more gameplay content instead. Why people ever cared about games looking like reality has always been a mystery to me. I'd take a game with the graphics of minecraft with the depth of the ocean any day over a game that looks like real life but has the gameplay depth of a puddle. I want things TO DO, not things to LOOK AT.
Maybe people should. But at the same time, there are those who want flashy and super realistic looking games and gameplay. Its what sets each player in the community apart from one another. Some people dont want to play arcade style games like fortenite, overwatch or call of duty that appeals mainly to casuals. They want to play something that looks and feels super realistic and above all also justify the amount of money they invested into their PC by giving it all that power to run such games. You like what you like, and other people like what they like. Are they wrong to like what they like? No! Are you wrong to like what you like? No! Though I agree about cutting down graphical fidelity slightly so they could dedicate more resources elsewhere and get the game out quicker. I think Ai is going to have a huge effect in streamlining development cycles when that finally gets off the line. Sadly, the caveat to that is that some people might also lose their jobs due to the rise of Ai.
there's no need to with Unreal 5 but the goal should be to present the game you want to make play well, not to sacrifice anything unless its suitable to do so.
@@Rose.Of.Hizaki while that is true i would say graphic fidelity has already peak, i would say we already seeing diminishing return in term of graphic fidelity. PS4 era and with any game game currently release is not all that different at a glance. Heck even ps3 game like TLOU still hold.
Same, I hate it when people talk all about graphics, "But what about gameplay?" I play games for fun, or for the story, not just to look at it. If I want to look at a beautiful looking game, it needs to be a walking simulator, that is built to look crazy and out worldly. But I will mainly go for gameplay and/or stories.
@@yt_Ajay_ Well. Not always. Some of them were ocassionally poorly done, with confusing layouts in Tomb Raider 3 and kind of hit a wall with the concept with Tomb Raider 4 or 5 sadly. And lets not forget about the six one...
Counter Strike was originally a MOD for the late 90's game Half-Life. A game that could run on a patato, in a time of early 3D acceleration was being adopted. It could be ruin on college, Uni and work machines, not meant for gaming. It's a different beast now, Valve built a steam powered future, but that's a different story. Battlebit sounds like a call back to those early days. An online FPS game might not be an original idea, but this one does not appear to be hidden behind layers of GPU shaders obscuring the landscape, NPCs and players. The game play makes the game.
Yahtzee from the escapist made a really good point. It was to the effect of imagining the incredible games we would see if the industry spent their performance budget on game systems rather than graphics
Myth was absolutely right about his observation. The FPS community has been inundated with way to many "Competitive" shooters, with Battle Passes, etc. BattleBit has shaved all that fat off and made a game that can be played casually and not feel like you're in a pro scrim all the time. Since launch, I already surpassed 50 hours in BattleBit. It has been a blast playing it.
omg, what a revelation. make a game that doesnt have graphics that need a $1,000 graphics card, has great gameplay, good voice, a decent price point, and you can get tons of gamers to play it. amazing. have to remember devs, not everybody has an amazing pc to play your games. most of the world has potatoes for pcs. remember when WoW had huge numbers? ya, potatoes could run it.
@@montypython5521 And still can't be run properly on mid range PCs, Cd Project Red pretty much lied about their PC Recommended specs, that's why a lot of people struggled with the game on PC.
@@runek100 The formula is already theirs, Battlebit is basically Battlefield 3. DICE just left the formula to collect dust while people were desperately asking for it, they waited too long.
The biggest difference between Battlebit and Battlefield is the price. for $15, I was able to buy it for myself and a fiend and it is still half the price of the newest battlefield game. This price point also increases the list of potential buyers. I cant wait to see what more the game has to offer as more updates come out. The devs are very quick to fix issue that pop up and add features the community wants.
It's a damn good game. A little bit more arcadey than Squad, but more realistic than Battlefield. It hit the sweet spot for me. If they can improve the lighting (feels a bit bland), probably modify the shaders a bit, and clean up the UI/Menu, then they are essentially feature complete. Even more than the majority of AAA shooters now.
I'm hoping Battlebit allows for shader/texture modpacks so potatoes can run the vanilla fine while peeps with beefier PC specs can get the nice shaders.
@@EnDianNeoIt's still in Early Access so it maybe take some time for an added mod supports but knowing the devs, They're would be pretty open for that idea. But rn, people will have fun with game with how it is. Seriously, some problems that people picked in Battlebit can feel a bit nitpicky but the overall game is solid compared to most modern games.
I really do enjoy when they make videos like these just talking about an interesting indie game. Not only is it great for the game getting more attention, it's just nice to hear about video games just being nice and good with no drama and making a win for the smaller studios.
Me and my friends have been struggling lately to have a game that nearly everyone enjoyed playing. Battlebit is a game that everyone in my friend group loves so far.
@@WorasLT Yeah, the combat is pretty jank, especially when in cover because if you're too close to an object you can't aim. Using a bolt action rifle is also a pain as you need to click again to chamber another round.
@@SekiberiusWelkeshive never had a problem with the cover, you need to position urself better. also, even tho chambering a round isnt hard to get used to, every bolt action rifle has attachments to auto rechamber a round
That and third party game engines that allow small teams to actually focus on the game and not on the lower-level stuff like physics and rendering pipelines
100% on the point about visual clarity. I find it really hard and frustrating to see things in games with more grounded graphics. Sacrificing fidelity for clarity is absolutely key.
I think the Trubo gameplay that Bellular referenced with traditional battlefield fans, is in this game. You can lower you weight to go fast, and make your gun handling fast, meaning you fly around corners and over walls firing like a loon getting high kill counts. You can also slow it down with a sniper rifle, and take your time with a 20x zoom scope, on a hill so far a way you are a spec, and just plink away at a building full of enemies. It's awesome to see.
had a blast with it last weekend, excited to fire it up again friday night gotta say though, feels a bit flash in the pan, it's gonna take some work to retain players but they seem humble, talented, and grounded enough to pull it off
Just got the game a few days ago and I absolutely love it. The game play and absolutely large amount of players per match made me fall in love with this game. AAA games Devs need to see how a game is made right. You don't need crazy graphics to have a good game. The features and functions of this game made a fun and fast pace game.
This has been made possible by third party game engines (Unity in this case) that allow a small team of passionate people to focus on actually making game features and not on the hardcore coding of the engine. Indie games have exploded because of that.
I'd love to see dynamic weather and day cycle in this, along with a good lighting engine. Presume we'll never get it as presume they want it to run all older systems
The system that rewards Bobby isn’t the same system that’s going to get us what we want from AAA. There’s no accountability and the incentives aren’t aligned with good art, never has been
The best thing about the fact that they are only three peoples is each of them get most of the money and not some scumbags boss, because they get a lot of money they can just made more content without worrying about bill.
11:00 That voice chat ingame being key is a great milsim feature in battlebit and its something I love about Project Reality and Squad. You're socializing in the game, not outside of it with a barrier to other people and as an introvert its so much easier to have great moments with people when we're just there and present and don't have to be in some party. And for extroverts you get to talk to tons of people! Even when in parties, I usually have the party mute up in game, then unmute afterwards
I was thinking only the other day after a UA-cam video about how expensive game development is, that it was because the mediocre managers (and, frankly, developers) are going for the easy but very expensive pretty graphics approach because the harder approach of identifying what gamers want and focussing on game play is beyond their intellectual reach. A quote from decades ago: "use fewer, but better, people" Edit: "The mythical man month" was published over half a century ago and I think most of the management fuckwits in IT have never heard of it (based on 35 years in software development)
@@rinnnnnnnnnnrinRinOnishi they are trying to crawl back a bit. Sad because literally 2042 had to just be battlefield 4 (but in the future) and it literally would have been fine. And they still messed it up
I love your wording. I am actually improving my english thanks to you and I just realised it. Love the game, gonna buy it and try it. The best part, the cost, this is exactly the higgest price im willing to pay just to try a game.
AAA devs thought they could ignore the players because they don’t know what makes a good game. They’re was 3000+ people supporting battlebit with patrean and being the beta testers.
There is such an odd, funny disconnect between what you see in the game and what is happening around you. The visuals are sort of, wonky (in a good way) and more "cartoonish", creating a humourous feeling as if you are playing a comedy game. Yet the battlefield around you is that immense chaos of gunfire, explosions and vehicles that you expect from these shooters. Love it. An advice I wish I knew a little sooner: Picking chestpiece, backpack and helmet are not just for good looks. They got statistics of their own and with a good setup you can carry way more ammo for your main gun than you are given by default.
I think an analogy that hasn't been touched upon is how this game has more in common with Running With Rifles. It's basically the same idea, but in first person mode and uses CoD/BF/Squad as the inspiration for its gameplay mechanics. The game is just fantastic and is a huge F-U to Activision and EA. If they aren't going to make the games that gamers want to play, we will do it ourselves. This sends a very clear message.
I'm your follower since Legion. I watched every VoD. Don't stop asking to subscribe. I always feel wow would be much better if everyone heard you and Matt every Friday. You and Matt make WoW a better place/game, ya know? :)
Its the same effect that Minecraft had it has barebone design but gameplay what players wanted. In the 2010 or so there where RPGMaker games out there where you had fun with thanks to the story building or when you spoken to some NPC where after 6-7 times the same line was repeated he promted you with a new Dialogtree and when you picked the wrong response it changed how the Story line was played in the next region of the game.
that tweet from the developer was the most mature thing i ever saw on twitter. May never need to buy a battlefield game again if these dudes keep it the good work.
I'm glad an indie is getting lots of attention and folks seem to really like Battlebit. I gave it a go but honestly it just seemed way OTT, being melted instantly from all directions got old pretty quick. But horses for courses, if you've got the reflexes and want that sort of manic fast paced action then its probably going to be a winner for you. But I don't get the comparisons to old school Battlefield, its way WAY faster and more chaotic than BF1/2, etc.
The gun models are a step beyond serviceable and the animations are actually good. They nailed all the parts that matter. Now I hope they can add better art eventually
The reason why I stopped being a modder is because of the ungodly amount of time needed to 3D model things realistically. Back in the day of Total Annihilation I could pump out a brand new unit within a day - right down to the 3D model, texturing, coding, and stats. This game is an excellent example of why we should look at the BattleBits and the Valheims of graphical design.
Lmao. You are easy. It must be good if someone on the internet said so. It's shit dude. You would never play this if you just found it, and couldn't see player count.
i already love Battlebit, and it reminded me of how much i really loved the more slower paced milsim shooter like arma, cause this game is everything but slow, i would love to see an King of the Hill mode in the game, 100v100. fighting for one big objective with both sides having there bases out a good 3 -4 km from the objective.
Battlebit won't be everyone's cup of tea, but the small development team has successfully distilled the essence of the milsim/combined arms shooter and what makes it fun. Very nice to see.
Mate, your the only persons thats said it. Theres too much clutter on screen. The fidelity here is top notch. As an older gamer my eyes and reactions just aint the same any more. Any help is much appreciated. You can actually see the enemy here, you can actually read the Battlefield again and feel the flow. Its not good paying 60 to 70 quid for a Sweaty Cluttered mess. The big companies wont like it because they need/have to push the hardware in conjunction with either Nvidia or Amd. Its up to us to just play what we like. Thank good for Battlebit.
This kind of game is exactly what the gaming community needs! A show of how gameplay should always be greater than HiFi graphics. Hope this has staying power to really drive the point home.
Having had played this game during multiple play test I would 100% argue that rn the game is much more like bf than a mil sim like squad for the time being people just spawn run gun repeat it can be hard to get your squad lead to even place a spawn down but I’m sure as the game grows the mil sim mechanics will age like wine
it really just goes to show that you can strip a game with all of its graphical fidelity and focus on the core gameplay loop and people will always flock to it
Imagine how good games could be if graphical fidelity wasn't a target? Obviously not every game but think of a game that looks like a end of generation ps2 game maybe 360 so outdated but not bad but the game it self is crazy ambitious.They didn't have to get bogged down with it looking "Next gen" next gen in gameplay but not graphics would be awesome.
VOIP on death is actually a very interesting feature. This ain't Xbox 360 Halo/MW2 days anymore: the crowd is more diverse and but aged so there's less angry-shit talking but more comedic moments which is enhanced more by the fact that it looks like Roblox.
Remember the late 80s and early 90s when every great game was developed by a team of around a dozen people, and everything felt good and just worked even without open beta testing and post-release patches and support forums?
I had the shadows off in BF2 because my PC would only run the game with everything set to min. It was only when I got a decent gaming PC that I realised what an advantage I'd had!
No no no, it's not a scale issue. It's an organization issue. Many AAA companies make great games. DICE ran battlefield and battlefront into the ground.
it weighs 2 gigs... already played it more than a game that weighs over 200 gigs and cost 3x as much. It can go on a potato. also... running around with a medpack on a frontline hearing "MEDIC! IM DYING!!! TELL MY CHILDREN I LOVE THEM!!!" is kinda fun xD also... combat is really satisfying be it CQC, medium range, or extreme sniping. very well designed maps.
Between this game and a lot of small dev projects we've seen in the last decade really one roves one thing to me thats been evident before gaming got this big. the industry need to deflate and downscale. When you have 200 - 300 person dev studios there's so much bureaucracy and standardization that happens because trying to communicate and synchronize with that many people is difficult. You start running into the age old issue of too many cooks in the kitchen and its been showing for a decade now. We either get broken and brittle games and/or games that are just straight up not finished or lack a cohesive vision. Then you have the problem of "games are expensive o make!" A big part of this is because when you're running a studio that employees 200 people, do the math on this. Lets say every single one of those employees, not counting the voice talent, all makes 30k a year working there. In one year alone thats 6 million dollars on development. If you wonder why places like microsoft make 343 have a revolving door for contract workers, this is why. And all of this for what? Better graphics? The industry is much better off with 1,000 small 10 - 50 teams than 10 200 - 300 teams. We get more games out of it, they're much less expensive to make. We can still have larger scale games with publisher backing on top of all this, its already happening.
256 player combine arms games and associated servers have been done before though, Novalogic's Joint Ops had 256 player servers and they were great to play on back in the day.
I don't play Battlebit but do enjoy watching others play. But it will be a matter of time before the clone games come out with the same style of graphics.
It was a great launch server wise and there is some cool features, but people are 100% glossing over some massive problems with the game because its made by 3 people. The game kinda plays like the Monte Grappa map in BF1. Massive chokepoints (akin to the bunker) and a lot of equipment usage and there is a shit load of equipment in this. Claymores, frags and mines are in abundance.
I've been saying for years now that visual clarity is single most important quality of a video game. Controls are a close second. "Gameplay" third. Video games are a visual interactive medium, and far far too often I feel, other developers forget that. There's a reason we all remember our favorite games from our childhood looking better. There's a reason everyone remembers "In Another Life, I Would Have Really Liked Just Doing Laundry and Taxes With You" in English (it was spoken in Chinese and subtitled).
product market fit explains Battlebit's success... It does NOT explain 2042's failure since they already had an established product model and market developed over a decade
Tbh I get your points and where youre coming from, but honestly I dont care why or how AAA studios fails to deliver and a small indie company is able, I just want to play the game, and if they drop a shit game, theyll get shit on. I dont need reasons or excuses why its bad, if the game is fun and reasonably priced, I pay, play and enjoy, thats all I go for
I think more people should be open to the idea of scaling back graphics a bit to reduce development time and having more gameplay content instead.
Why people ever cared about games looking like reality has always been a mystery to me.
I'd take a game with the graphics of minecraft with the depth of the ocean any day over a game that looks like real life but has the gameplay depth of a puddle.
I want things TO DO, not things to LOOK AT.
No lies detected.
It also makes the games more accessible to people in other countries who can't afford high end gpu's
Maybe people should. But at the same time, there are those who want flashy and super realistic looking games and gameplay. Its what sets each player in the community apart from one another. Some people dont want to play arcade style games like fortenite, overwatch or call of duty that appeals mainly to casuals. They want to play something that looks and feels super realistic and above all also justify the amount of money they invested into their PC by giving it all that power to run such games.
You like what you like, and other people like what they like. Are they wrong to like what they like? No! Are you wrong to like what you like? No! Though I agree about cutting down graphical fidelity slightly so they could dedicate more resources elsewhere and get the game out quicker.
I think Ai is going to have a huge effect in streamlining development cycles when that finally gets off the line. Sadly, the caveat to that is that some people might also lose their jobs due to the rise of Ai.
there's no need to with Unreal 5 but the goal should be to present the game you want to make play well, not to sacrifice anything unless its suitable to do so.
@@Rose.Of.Hizaki while that is true i would say graphic fidelity has already peak, i would say we already seeing diminishing return in term of graphic fidelity. PS4 era and with any game game currently release is not all that different at a glance. Heck even ps3 game like TLOU still hold.
That's the thing about videogames. It might be impressive when a game looks lifelike, but I'm not here just to look at it.
Same, I hate it when people talk all about graphics, "But what about gameplay?" I play games for fun, or for the story, not just to look at it. If I want to look at a beautiful looking game, it needs to be a walking simulator, that is built to look crazy and out worldly.
But I will mainly go for gameplay and/or stories.
@@TheSpamMuncher Tomb Raider is the perfect go-to example for me. The older games are a lot more fun.
@@yt_Ajay_ Well. Not always. Some of them were ocassionally poorly done, with confusing layouts in Tomb Raider 3 and kind of hit a wall with the concept with Tomb Raider 4 or 5 sadly. And lets not forget about the six one...
I never was.
@@TheSpamMuncher what pisses me off is that those people son and look at where we are at now. In the fucking shitter.
Counter Strike was originally a MOD for the late 90's game Half-Life. A game that could run on a patato, in a time of early 3D acceleration was being adopted. It could be ruin on college, Uni and work machines, not meant for gaming. It's a different beast now, Valve built a steam powered future, but that's a different story.
Battlebit sounds like a call back to those early days. An online FPS game might not be an original idea, but this one does not appear to be hidden behind layers of GPU shaders obscuring the landscape, NPCs and players. The game play makes the game.
Yahtzee from the escapist made a really good point. It was to the effect of imagining the incredible games we would see if the industry spent their performance budget on game systems rather than graphics
Imagine playing fun games again. The horror.
Myth was absolutely right about his observation. The FPS community has been inundated with way to many "Competitive" shooters, with Battle Passes, etc. BattleBit has shaved all that fat off and made a game that can be played casually and not feel like you're in a pro scrim all the time. Since launch, I already surpassed 50 hours in BattleBit. It has been a blast playing it.
omg, what a revelation. make a game that doesnt have graphics that need a $1,000 graphics card, has great gameplay, good voice, a decent price point, and you can get tons of gamers to play it. amazing. have to remember devs, not everybody has an amazing pc to play your games. most of the world has potatoes for pcs. remember when WoW had huge numbers? ya, potatoes could run it.
i think if they reduce the fluff a bit it will still look good, we already have very realistic looking game since The last of us during the PS3 era.
cater to potatoes? idk. cyberpunk has millions in sales too
It can still look really good and run on low end PCs like csgo. But that is 5v5, not 250 players
@@darugdawg2453 And it was broken af even on million dollar machines
@@montypython5521 And still can't be run properly on mid range PCs, Cd Project Red pretty much lied about their PC Recommended specs, that's why a lot of people struggled with the game on PC.
Imagine being DICE right now. Out played by 3 people.
Imagine being a shareholder of EA, short term gains going down the pooper.
If they are clever, they copy the formula and produce best selling fps for years to come.
@@runek100 The formula is already theirs, Battlebit is basically Battlefield 3. DICE just left the formula to collect dust while people were desperately asking for it, they waited too long.
@@ne0nmancerthe best battlefield
3 teenagers*
The biggest difference between Battlebit and Battlefield is the price. for $15, I was able to buy it for myself and a fiend and it is still half the price of the newest battlefield game. This price point also increases the list of potential buyers. I cant wait to see what more the game has to offer as more updates come out. The devs are very quick to fix issue that pop up and add features the community wants.
Less than half
Battlefield 4042 is 15$ now
@@cheesse9yearsand yeah because it was terrible at launch, the original price was 60 or 70$
@@Cluxiu l know I was haven't played in two years I couldn't log in because one of the updates back then
@@cheesse9yearsand just play bf 1 instead, 2042 doesn't deserve your time
It's a damn good game. A little bit more arcadey than Squad, but more realistic than Battlefield. It hit the sweet spot for me. If they can improve the lighting (feels a bit bland), probably modify the shaders a bit, and clean up the UI/Menu, then they are essentially feature complete. Even more than the majority of AAA shooters now.
I'm hoping Battlebit allows for shader/texture modpacks so potatoes can run the vanilla fine while peeps with beefier PC specs can get the nice shaders.
@@EnDianNeoIt's still in Early Access so it maybe take some time for an added mod supports but knowing the devs, They're would be pretty open for that idea.
But rn, people will have fun with game with how it is.
Seriously, some problems that people picked in Battlebit can feel a bit nitpicky but the overall game is solid compared to most modern games.
Since it's still in Early Access, we can expect more changes in the future, for the better of course!
I haven't seen one instance of lag in 30 hours play. Insanely well made
As an day 1 battlefield player and squad enjoyer. This game is highkey perfect.
BF > COD for sure !
@@IdentifiantE.S go away weirdo
They're completely different games catering to completely different people
Combined arms armageddon all the way
This is better than battlefield
Battlebit got me into more realistic games like HLL (pre U14) and Squad, and I'm very thankful.
I really do enjoy when they make videos like these just talking about an interesting indie game. Not only is it great for the game getting more attention, it's just nice to hear about video games just being nice and good with no drama and making a win for the smaller studios.
Me and my friends have been struggling lately to have a game that nearly everyone enjoyed playing. Battlebit is a game that everyone in my friend group loves so far.
We played duo but its not that great.
Bit janky for my taste - will see if it gets better.
@@WorasLT Yeah, the combat is pretty jank, especially when in cover because if you're too close to an object you can't aim. Using a bolt action rifle is also a pain as you need to click again to chamber another round.
@@SekiberiusWelkesh There is unwanted amount of overlap between realism and realistic.
@@SekiberiusWelkeshive never had a problem with the cover, you need to position urself better. also, even tho chambering a round isnt hard to get used to, every bolt action rifle has attachments to auto rechamber a round
@@ZxroUA-cam It's pretty hard to position yourself better when you're getting shot at from every direction at once.
Battlebit the kind of game to make you feel like a kid again. Pure unbridled fun.
Three people who know how to run a freaking project beat 200+ people who don't. Who'd have thought?
That and third party game engines that allow small teams to actually focus on the game and not on the lower-level stuff like physics and rendering pipelines
sad state of modern gaming sadly. good for them though.
well no board of directors forcing them to screw up their game for monetization yet
@@marcogenovesi8570big companies usually use the same engines
@@dire3648 no they usually develop their own engine. Battlefield games use Frostbite engine developed by themselves.
100% on the point about visual clarity. I find it really hard and frustrating to see things in games with more grounded graphics. Sacrificing fidelity for clarity is absolutely key.
Solid review I like how you talk about the game and mechanics rather than just show gameplay like everyone else
9:47 Absolute professional to ignore that bug on his glasses during the take.
I think the Trubo gameplay that Bellular referenced with traditional battlefield fans, is in this game. You can lower you weight to go fast, and make your gun handling fast, meaning you fly around corners and over walls firing like a loon getting high kill counts. You can also slow it down with a sniper rifle, and take your time with a 20x zoom scope, on a hill so far a way you are a spec, and just plink away at a building full of enemies. It's awesome to see.
In a word, BBR is smooth; the movement and gun play “feels” good.
had a blast with it last weekend, excited to fire it up again friday night
gotta say though, feels a bit flash in the pan, it's gonna take some work to retain players but they seem humble, talented, and grounded enough to pull it off
Nah. A few bored you tubers played it, and now people think it's good. It's shit.
@@JwhateverJWhy?
I just assume most AAA games will be garbage now and look out for gems like this.
100% this, AAA gaming turning into guilty until proven innocent
🤣
yep everything in AAA gaming as now about how can we monetize every aspect of the game not how can we make the game fun.
Saving so much money that way too.
Well, the new fps from Ubisoft looks very promising tho
@@runek100*Maybe.. but so did many others..*
Just got the game a few days ago and I absolutely love it. The game play and absolutely large amount of players per match made me fall in love with this game. AAA games Devs need to see how a game is made right. You don't need crazy graphics to have a good game. The features and functions of this game made a fun and fast pace game.
This has been made possible by third party game engines (Unity in this case) that allow a small team of passionate people to focus on actually making game features and not on the hardcore coding of the engine. Indie games have exploded because of that.
One of the best multiplayer shooters in years
I'd love to see dynamic weather and day cycle in this, along with a good lighting engine. Presume we'll never get it as presume they want it to run all older systems
I may be talking out of my bum, but it feels like we're starting to hit the Romanticism of Gaming.
I like how you phrased that
The system that rewards Bobby isn’t the same system that’s going to get us what we want from AAA. There’s no accountability and the incentives aren’t aligned with good art, never has been
The best thing about the fact that they are only three peoples is each of them get most of the money and not some scumbags boss, because they get a lot of money they can just made more content without worrying about bill.
We want to make the devs filthy rich, not some corpo bigwigs.
I'm sure developing the game will be infinitely easier knowing people love the game and are financially supporting it.
11:00 That voice chat ingame being key is a great milsim feature in battlebit and its something I love about Project Reality and Squad. You're socializing in the game, not outside of it with a barrier to other people and as an introvert its so much easier to have great moments with people when we're just there and present and don't have to be in some party. And for extroverts you get to talk to tons of people!
Even when in parties, I usually have the party mute up in game, then unmute afterwards
I have been dragged by the enemy team while they chanted "one of us! one of us!" and other random funny shit.
I've been playing this and omfg 3 guys made a better game that battlefield lmfao
I was thinking only the other day after a UA-cam video about how expensive game development is, that it was because the mediocre managers (and, frankly, developers) are going for the easy but very expensive pretty graphics approach because the harder approach of identifying what gamers want and focussing on game play is beyond their intellectual reach. A quote from decades ago: "use fewer, but better, people"
Edit: "The mythical man month" was published over half a century ago and I think most of the management fuckwits in IT have never heard of it (based on 35 years in software development)
Battlefield devs: people just dont play games like they used to. Guess the genre is dying
Battlebit: hold my beer
dice simply doesnt know what battlefield is anymore, its lost the sauce
@@rinnnnnnnnnnrinRinOnishi they are trying to crawl back a bit. Sad because literally 2042 had to just be battlefield 4 (but in the future) and it literally would have been fine. And they still messed it up
I love your wording. I am actually improving my english thanks to you and I just realised it.
Love the game, gonna buy it and try it. The best part, the cost, this is exactly the higgest price im willing to pay just to try a game.
AAA devs thought they could ignore the players because they don’t know what makes a good game. They’re was 3000+ people supporting battlebit with patrean and being the beta testers.
Alot of the patreon supporters were battlefield refuges
Its been sooo fun! Love people who blast music and stuff in the mic! They make the game feel more alive
Ooph... That does the opposite of selling the game to someone like me. Blasting music I didn't ask for isn't going to make me a fan.
@@XBluDiamondX its every once in awhile you find people that do, plus! others like to rock with it
@@XBluDiamondX well that, and there's a QUICK mute button on f3 for those types of people if they're not your cup of tea!
"Helicopter... Helicopter 🎶"
😂
@@rizaldy691 tunk-tunk tunk-tunk Dahl dah dah (however it's spelled lmao)
I can't stop playing this game. See you in Wakistan:D
There is such an odd, funny disconnect between what you see in the game and what is happening around you. The visuals are sort of, wonky (in a good way) and more "cartoonish", creating a humourous feeling as if you are playing a comedy game. Yet the battlefield around you is that immense chaos of gunfire, explosions and vehicles that you expect from these shooters. Love it.
An advice I wish I knew a little sooner: Picking chestpiece, backpack and helmet are not just for good looks. They got statistics of their own and with a good setup you can carry way more ammo for your main gun than you are given by default.
This was fantastically done. Great video Bellular!
I think an analogy that hasn't been touched upon is how this game has more in common with Running With Rifles. It's basically the same idea, but in first person mode and uses CoD/BF/Squad as the inspiration for its gameplay mechanics. The game is just fantastic and is a huge F-U to Activision and EA. If they aren't going to make the games that gamers want to play, we will do it ourselves. This sends a very clear message.
this game has been absolute blast to play
This game checkmarks everything i use to love about battlefield games until BF1 even a bit of BFV after that s*** went downhill as we all aware
I'm your follower since Legion. I watched every VoD. Don't stop asking to subscribe. I always feel wow would be much better if everyone heard you and Matt every Friday. You and Matt make WoW a better place/game, ya know? :)
Its the same effect that Minecraft had it has barebone design but gameplay what players wanted. In the 2010 or so there where RPGMaker games out there where you had fun with thanks to the story building or when you spoken to some NPC where after 6-7 times the same line was repeated he promted you with a new Dialogtree and when you picked the wrong response it changed how the Story line was played in the next region of the game.
anyone else notice how all the good games as of late are games that don't focus on graphics?
I was following this game for ages. With few harsh bumps, holy f, this game is awesome.
that tweet from the developer was the most mature thing i ever saw on twitter. May never need to buy a battlefield game again if these dudes keep it the good work.
I'm glad an indie is getting lots of attention and folks seem to really like Battlebit. I gave it a go but honestly it just seemed way OTT, being melted instantly from all directions got old pretty quick. But horses for courses, if you've got the reflexes and want that sort of manic fast paced action then its probably going to be a winner for you. But I don't get the comparisons to old school Battlefield, its way WAY faster and more chaotic than BF1/2, etc.
The gun models are a step beyond serviceable and the animations are actually good. They nailed all the parts that matter. Now I hope they can add better art eventually
The reason why I stopped being a modder is because of the ungodly amount of time needed to 3D model things realistically. Back in the day of Total Annihilation I could pump out a brand new unit within a day - right down to the 3D model, texturing, coding, and stats.
This game is an excellent example of why we should look at the BattleBits and the Valheims of graphical design.
Bad Company 2!!!!! Oooof, what a nostalgia rush. Sound design was so, so good in that.
You got something crawling on your glasses
This game is so much fun.
Gameplay > Graphics
i need a podcast interview with these guys!
this is true AAA game:
-a developer
-a developer
-a developer
between the beginning of this video and the end, i bought and installed this game. thanks dude. good looking out.
Lmao. You are easy. It must be good if someone on the internet said so.
It's shit dude. You would never play this if you just found it, and couldn't see player count.
Who knew that gameplay is more important than graphics, not execs thata for sure
Damn I’m old. Didn’t know lobby chat went away. Good times!
It was the best of times. It was the worst of times.
i already love Battlebit, and it reminded me of how much i really loved the more slower paced milsim shooter like arma, cause this game is everything but slow, i would love to see an King of the Hill mode in the game, 100v100. fighting for one big objective with both sides having there bases out a good 3 -4 km from the objective.
Battlebit won't be everyone's cup of tea, but the small development team has successfully distilled the essence of the milsim/combined arms shooter and what makes it fun. Very nice to see.
Back in rising storm we would have shouting matches with the enemy in the other trenches before engaging in a fire fight
Mate, your the only persons thats said it. Theres too much clutter on screen. The fidelity here is top notch. As an older gamer my eyes and reactions just aint the same any more. Any help is much appreciated. You can actually see the enemy here, you can actually read the Battlefield again and feel the flow. Its not good paying 60 to 70 quid for a Sweaty Cluttered mess. The big companies wont like it because they need/have to push the hardware in conjunction with either Nvidia or Amd. Its up to us to just play what we like. Thank good for Battlebit.
Bug on the glasses at 10:00
I swear I was listening to what he was saying.
This kind of game is exactly what the gaming community needs!
A show of how gameplay should always be greater than HiFi graphics. Hope this has staying power to really drive the point home.
This reminds me of Ace of Spades but Battlefield minus the zombies. So they should add a zombie mode one day!
Having had played this game during multiple play test I would 100% argue that rn the game is much more like bf than a mil sim like squad for the time being people just spawn run gun repeat it can be hard to get your squad lead to even place a spawn down but I’m sure as the game grows the mil sim mechanics will age like wine
Indie games are getting better every year
While triple A 'quality' degrades every month
When something is made with passion in mind instead of profit then you get something as good as battlebit
the game has been all around a fun experience.
the bug on his glasses at like 10min is really fucking with me
it really just goes to show that you can strip a game with all of its graphical fidelity and focus on the core gameplay loop and people will always flock to it
Imagine how good games could be if graphical fidelity wasn't a target? Obviously not every game but think of a game that looks like a end of generation ps2 game maybe 360 so outdated but not bad but the game it self is crazy ambitious.They didn't have to get bogged down with it looking "Next gen" next gen in gameplay but not graphics would be awesome.
VOIP on death is actually a very interesting feature. This ain't Xbox 360 Halo/MW2 days anymore: the crowd is more diverse and but aged so there's less angry-shit talking but more comedic moments which is enhanced more by the fact that it looks like Roblox.
I just bought this game to try it out with my son. Looks sweet.
Remember the late 80s and early 90s when every great game was developed by a team of around a dozen people, and everything felt good and just worked even without open beta testing and post-release patches and support forums?
BattleBits Reign Supreme 🔥
I had the shadows off in BF2 because my PC would only run the game with everything set to min.
It was only when I got a decent gaming PC that I realised what an advantage I'd had!
No no no, it's not a scale issue. It's an organization issue. Many AAA companies make great games. DICE ran battlefield and battlefront into the ground.
Game having day and night map versions is amazing.
Too bad everyone hates playing on night.
I love this game!!
it weighs 2 gigs... already played it more than a game that weighs over 200 gigs and cost 3x as much.
It can go on a potato.
also... running around with a medpack on a frontline hearing "MEDIC! IM DYING!!! TELL MY CHILDREN I LOVE THEM!!!" is kinda fun xD
also... combat is really satisfying be it CQC, medium range, or extreme sniping. very well designed maps.
These guys are likely designing the game to be a game. Big studios are designing a game to be a revenue stream.
20$ early access is designed for a revenue stream. Gtfo.
@@JwhateverJYou're coping
@@JwhateverJIt's $15
I'm gonna keep bashing Battlefield with this game. They have really lost their way and what made their games so loved.
Between this game and a lot of small dev projects we've seen in the last decade really one roves one thing to me thats been evident before gaming got this big. the industry need to deflate and downscale. When you have 200 - 300 person dev studios there's so much bureaucracy and standardization that happens because trying to communicate and synchronize with that many people is difficult. You start running into the age old issue of too many cooks in the kitchen and its been showing for a decade now. We either get broken and brittle games and/or games that are just straight up not finished or lack a cohesive vision. Then you have the problem of "games are expensive o make!" A big part of this is because when you're running a studio that employees 200 people, do the math on this. Lets say every single one of those employees, not counting the voice talent, all makes 30k a year working there. In one year alone thats 6 million dollars on development. If you wonder why places like microsoft make 343 have a revolving door for contract workers, this is why. And all of this for what? Better graphics?
The industry is much better off with 1,000 small 10 - 50 teams than 10 200 - 300 teams. We get more games out of it, they're much less expensive to make. We can still have larger scale games with publisher backing on top of all this, its already happening.
Valheim or DRG are also good examples.
Thankyou. more people need to know what is important in gamging.
256 player combine arms games and associated servers have been done before though, Novalogic's Joint Ops had 256 player servers and they were great to play on back in the day.
256 players on any modern AAA shooter would melt the servers
@@marcogenovesi8570 ever heard of Planetside2?
@@DonTekNOThat is also a pretty good game and it's free
@@ThisisKyle Oh its a love hate relationship ;D but the good parts still outweigh the shortcomings. Greetings from Miller !
The game plays good and is fun. it's silly and people don't hardcore sweat like every other game recently.
I don't play Battlebit but do enjoy watching others play. But it will be a matter of time before the clone games come out with the same style of graphics.
love you
Lobby chat is literally the reason I didn't play multiplayer games until party chat existed
It was a great launch server wise and there is some cool features, but people are 100% glossing over some massive problems with the game because its made by 3 people.
The game kinda plays like the Monte Grappa map in BF1. Massive chokepoints (akin to the bunker) and a lot of equipment usage and there is a shit load of equipment in this. Claymores, frags and mines are in abundance.
Weren't you going to mention the problems?
Bell, should you see this comment, you should talk about Avorion. It's a huge space sandbox game with a very large scope also made by a small team.
I've been saying for years now that visual clarity is single most important quality of a video game. Controls are a close second. "Gameplay" third. Video games are a visual interactive medium, and far far too often I feel, other developers forget that. There's a reason we all remember our favorite games from our childhood looking better. There's a reason everyone remembers "In Another Life, I Would Have Really Liked Just Doing Laundry and Taxes With You" in English (it was spoken in Chinese and subtitled).
When i play battlebit, i can squint my eyes and imagine I'm playing battlefield, but with more and better features.
product market fit explains Battlebit's success...
It does NOT explain 2042's failure since they already had an established product model and market developed over a decade
Dam I had no idea Bellular knows about Squad.
at 918 in this vid does a fly walk this glasses
Tbh I get your points and where youre coming from, but honestly I dont care why or how AAA studios fails to deliver and a small indie company is able, I just want to play the game, and if they drop a shit game, theyll get shit on. I dont need reasons or excuses why its bad, if the game is fun and reasonably priced, I pay, play and enjoy, thats all I go for