Battlefield 3 - Official Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
ebeattie said:
http://www.gameinformer.com/p/bf3.aspx

Watch all the interviews. These are the devs making the game.... lemme know if you still get the idea the Battlefield 3 is going to be a console port, or a PC first game as they state.
Click to expand...

It looks impressive but they all say that, Cevat Yerli has said the same thing "there is high end PC research that is going on as well with Cryengine 3.

I Can't wait to see more of BF3 myself it looks awesome from the one trailer that we have seen but it is multi-platform regardless of which version looks better...I imagine Crysis 2 will look better on PC too, how much better is still has yet to be seen.
 
Last edited:
ebeattie said:
http://www.gameinformer.com/p/bf3.aspx

Watch all the interviews. These are the devs making the game.... lemme know if you still get the idea the Battlefield 3 is going to be a console port, or a PC first game as they state.
Click to expand...

Actually the truth is none of the versions are ports. Its sort of an in house middleware solution where the start with the same basic engine concepts and port it out to each respective camp (PC, PS3, 360) and then focus on the strengths of each from there and figure out how to minimize the weaknesses. Lots of hardware specific code being written. Of course the PC version will look the best due to potentially having gobs of memory and shader power. But there is some really interesting stuff happening with the customizations for the PS3 version of BC3.
 
chameleoneel said:
Actually the truth is none of the versions are ports. Its sort of an in house middleware solution where the start with the same basic engine concepts and port it out to each respective camp (PC, PS3, 360) and then focus on the strengths of each from there and figure out how to minimize the weaknesses. Lots of hardware specific code being written. Of course the PC version will look the best due to potentially having gobs of memory and shader power. But there is some really interesting stuff happening with the customizations for the PS3 version of BC3.
Click to expand...

They have to start SOMEWHERE. That either happens with writing it starting on the the 360, PS3 or PC. Given Frostbit 1.0 is console specific, and 1.5 is a further step on top of that, they started somewhere on the consoles and then moved from there.

Sure, they have hardware specific code; but they start SOMEWHERE. You don't just code up an entire engine and hand it over with never having tested it.
 
Plus we've heard that line of propaganda before from the developers of Bioshock, Borderlands and Bulletstorm...and look at the results there.

I have confidence in BF3 solely because of DICE, not because of some PR-spewed "we're developing three versions of the game, one for each platform!" bullshit.
 
rampantandroid said:
They have to start SOMEWHERE. That either happens with writing it starting on the the 360, PS3 or PC. Given Frostbit 1.0 is console specific, and 1.5 is a further step on top of that, they started somewhere on the consoles and then moved from there.

Sure, they have hardware specific code; but they start SOMEWHERE. You don't just code up an entire engine and hand it over with never having tested it.
Click to expand...


its starting as a PC game then being ported to console by removing features until its feasably playable on the console.. the games dx10/11 only so theres no way for them to develope it on console and port it to PC, common sense.. also the frostbite 2.0 engine is a total re-write. its not even the same engine used in BC2. its all in the Game Informer magazine article/interview they did.


heres some interesting links.. pictures/slides/information from the GDC event that happened a few days ago.

http://forums.electronicarts.co.uk/...-frostbite-2-battlefield-3-pictures-70-a.html
http://www.slideshare.net/DICEStudio/directx-11-rendering-in-battlefield-3
http://www.slideshare.net/DICEStudio/spubased-deferred-shading-in-battlefield-3-for-playstation-3
http://www.slideshare.net/DICEStudio/culling-the-battlefield-data-oriented-design-in-practice
http://www.slideshare.net/DICEStudio/lighting-you-up-in-battlefield-3

lots of reading but well worth the read if you actually want to understand how games are developed and what will be used and why its being used in BF3.


as for the person that said something about SLI earlier. yes this games being heavily pushed for high end performance and SLI/crossfire will definitely be important.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to guess a single card solution like a HD 6970 or GTX 580 will be enough to max this game out (minus AA) at 1920x1080 with like 40-50 FPS. But for 2560x1600 and higher I would guess you'd probably need to Crossfire/SLI a card with atleast 2GB VRam (5870 2GB/6950 2GB/6970/GTX 580 3GB).
 
Plague_Injected said:
Doesn anyone else think BF3's graphics look better than Crysis 2? Honestly that's how I feel...maybe it's just the gritty wartorn look against the alienisms of Crysis 2 but the BF3 graphics just impress me so.
Click to expand...

Miles better, Crysis 2 looks to be using shitty low quality textures
 
Consoles have no CHANCE of running this like they did with cry 2 with lower textures. The game is just going to be too large with too many destructibles, effects, etc. If there is a console version, it would almost have to be a separate development imo. Of course, I don't know code very well at all so my opion is pretty much just that.

I do know that I am looking forward to this. Might be my last competitive game before I become too ancient and slow.
 
spaceman said:
I do know that I am looking forward to this. Might be my last competitive game before I become too ancient and slow.
Click to expand...

LOL - So I'm NOT the only one who feels this way. ;) I'm at level 20 in BC2 and only now do I feel like I know my way around the game decently and can keep up.
 
spaceman said:
Consoles have no CHANCE of running this like they did with cry 2 with lower textures. The game is just going to be too large with too many destructibles, effects, etc. If there is a console version, it would almost have to be a separate development imo. Of course, I don't know code very well at all so my opion is pretty much just that.
Click to expand...

I don't see what's so impressive. What we've watched is a compressed 1080p video on Youtube? Judging textures from that is not really accurate, and aside from the lighting, which is fine, but nothing mindblowing, there's not much to be impressed by?

Consoles will run this easy once it's in 1152x684 or whatever resolution, max 32 players, low res textures, lower quality lighting, shadows, etc. And everyone knows I'm no console fan, but of course they'll make the game run fine, although crippled, sure.

And of course it's a seperate development, like all games. One team handles PC version, another PS3, a third 360.

Oh yeah, and animations look great.

Multiplayer would be much more badass if there was bullet holes and gore, but that will never happen.
 
Last edited:
odex said:
Multiplayer would be much more badass if there was bullet holes and gore, but that will never happen.
Click to expand...

Speaking of which, how come we haven't seen a game recently (aside from the atrocious sequel) do gore like was done in Soldier of Fortune. I would love to see visceral stuff and bullet holes again.
 
odex said:
I don't see what's so impressive. What we've watched is a compressed 1080p video on Youtube? Judging textures from that is not really accurate, and aside from the lighting, which is fine, but nothing mindblowing, there's not much to be impressed by?

Consoles will run this easy once it's in 1152x684 or whatever resolution, max 32 players, low res textures, lower quality lighting, shadows, etc. And everyone knows I'm no console fan, but of course they'll make the game run fine, although crippled, sure.

And of course it's a seperate development, like all games. One team handles PC version, another PS3, a third 360.

Oh yeah, and animations look great.

Multiplayer would be much more badass if there was bullet holes and gore, but that will never happen.
Click to expand...

i dunno, DICE does a pretty good job with going over the edge and out of the norm. i mean hell i like the gore factor of BC2. its not insanely over the top, but you damn well know when you hit some one in the friggin head with a sniper rifle from 300+ meters away. i also like the throat grabbing deaths.


btw consoles use 720p or less resolution. most 360 games are up converted to 1080p and ps3 has a few games that are true 1080p.
 
The engine looks impressive. I can appreciate the fact they want to dump DX9.

Screw the consoles, their technology is dated. Being stuck on Windows XP technology when Windows 7 and its DX base is so much better is stupid.

The beauty of the PC has always been the speed at which it advanced. Seeing the entire gaming industry sit on their nuts on DX9 based gaming has killed it. I hope Dice turns it around and throws a monkey wrench into the plans of every crap developer out there.
 
sirmonkey1985 said:
i dunno, DICE does a pretty good job with going over the edge and out of the norm. i mean hell i like the gore factor of BC2. its not insanely over the top, but you damn well know when you hit some one in the friggin head with a sniper rifle from 300+ meters away. i also like the throat grabbing deaths.


btw consoles use 720p or less resolution. most 360 games are up converted to 1080p and ps3 has a few games that are true 1080p.
Click to expand...

In my experience with the PS3, it seems extremely reluctant to even upscale anything to 1080p...it wants to play every 720p game at 720p.

The throat-grabbing animations occasionally remind me of the original Soldier of Fortune "throat-shots" :cool:. Gore is still a new feature to Battlefield though as I recall...Battlefield 2 and the first Bad Company were bloodless, which for me always defeated a degree of the realism.
 
defiant007 said:
Not really, retail release is only DX9 with DX10/11 only being patched in after release. I doubt that a DX11 patch is going to give the game any significant visual upgrade.
Click to expand...

Yes, there is a difference between supporting DX11 and being DX11. Most of the DX11-enabled games, at least to me, merely look like DX9 with DX11 features tacked on.
 
Plague_Injected said:
Yes, there is a difference between supporting DX11 and being DX11. Most of the DX11-enabled games, at least to me, merely look like DX9 with DX11 features tacked on.
Click to expand...

Im still waiting to see the benefits of having HBAO enabled...cause all i see it do is make a massive hit to frame rates lol.
 
What a pointless statement. If you build and structure the game and design maps for 256 players of course it would be fun. Can't just... oh, let's try 256 players on this map we've made for 32 players. No kidding it's not fun.

You'd also need more structure when it comes to squads and command. Not to mention balance.

100+ players are fun in Arma 2, because it's built for that.

Man, devs are getting less intelligent by the moment.
 
odex said:
What a pointless statement. If you build and structure the game and design maps for 256 players of course it would be fun. Can't just... oh, let's try 256 players on this map we've made for 32 players. No kidding it's not fun.

You'd also need more structure when it comes to squads and command. Not to mention balance.

100+ players are fun in Arma 2, because it's built for that.

Man, devs are getting less intelligent by the moment.
Click to expand...

And you know they didn't build a version of the game with proper map dimensions for 128-256 how?

You make far too many assumptions on a post that has far too little information to go off of.
 
Map dimensions are one thing, but I know how game development works, how costly time is. All games go through revisions, but you just don't make one 256 player version of the game and one 32/64 player. Map dimensions are just a piece of the puzzle, like I said, if you want to make a 256 player game you have to set out to do that from the start.

The way they said what they did, tells me that this was something they just "tried". Of course they could make a 256 player game if they'd set out to do that from the start. If you don't believe that, then you think they're more incompetent than even I do.
 
Why is it that the only numbers considered/talked about are 32/64/128/256? Would there be some sort of problem with doing something like 80 or 100 people?
 
It's a multiple of 8, computer programs are built off these numbers though I doubt there would be any difficulty in using different numbers, aka I dunno lol
 
WiLLiSTER said:
Why is it that the only numbers considered/talked about are 32/64/128/256? Would there be some sort of problem with doing something like 80 or 100 people?
Click to expand...

Most technology related stuff comes in powers of two. I am sure they could have a 47 player server if they wanted.
 
I always thought 64 players got a little chaotic and disjointed in BF2 so I'm not too bummed that they're not pushing the player limit. I just hope they perfect the 64 player game and maps. :)
 
If your jamming 128 players onto a 64 person map then its gay...if you create a large map that truly supports 128 or more players then its bad ass.
 
Until you try to start a game in such a server where the map is huge and there are only 8 people in to start. Then it's a boring waste of time.
 
I am standing in line at pax east for the live demo in a closed room. I will report back later on info.
 
Cmustang87 said:
Speaking of which, how come we haven't seen a game recently (aside from the atrocious sequel) do gore like was done in Soldier of Fortune. I would love to see visceral stuff and bullet holes again.
Click to expand...

I have to admit, splitting heads on SOF 1 and SOF 2 was really fun...would be cool to see that in any FPS.
 
exlink said:
I'm going to guess a single card solution like a HD 6970 or GTX 580 will be enough to max this game out (minus AA) at 1920x1080 with like 40-50 FPS. But for 2560x1600 and higher I would guess you'd probably need to Crossfire/SLI a card with atleast 2GB VRam (5870 2GB/6950 2GB/6970/GTX 580 3GB).
Click to expand...

wrong, bf games were always mostly cpu bound, on the other hand dice has confirmed that you will need the fastest card you can get, but until the actual game comes out no one should upgrade, look what at happened with bc2, many ppl bought those 58xx / gtx 460s while still sporting a puny dual core without knowing that their game could run much better on a 5770 + a mildy oced i5.
Oh and i wouldn't ever want to mess with a multi-gpu setup, you're practically forced to use vsync(ew) in order to minimise micro stuttering, experiment with drivers + profiles + rendering methods and monitor your gpu usage all the time so you can ensure that your second frigging gpu works as it should . Multigpu setups are optimal for benchmarking, not for pub stomping.

BF / MOH games were never about splatter, i kinda miss the sof series too, atleast we have l4d :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top