Battlefield 3 - Official Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
OFaceSIG said:
You can reload an AR rifle without disrupting your vision on your target? You're a beast if you're being honest.
Click to expand...

Not that hard, you can do a chamber check and reload while keeping sight of your target. All technique and repetition.
 
chameleoneel said:
DICE's 24 player count for consoles is purely driven by the fact that the current form of the Frostbite engine cannot fit 50+ players into such a small RAM footprint. It has nothing to do with ANYTHING else.
Click to expand...

Actually, thats probably not all its driven by but what ever, your apparently a higher class of human, one with some kind of psychic or telepathic ability tuning into what the minds of Dice, EA, Microsoft and, Sony are thinking. I'm probably being ignorant, considering the fact that I dont posses those particular abilities but...I'm gona go out on a limb here and say that this decision probably revolved around a cost, benefit point of view. On the other hand screw autonomy maybe we should all just listen to this guy and buy the game on the ps3 its only inferiority is its smaller "ram footprint".
 
Plague_Injected said:
Considering you've come here with a hostile attitude and tone, I don't feel particularly inclined to debate anything with you.
Click to expand...
ok but you get to come in and attack? You implied that there is something wrong or inferior with people who play games on consoles. You implied that they are simple and cannot handle the possible higher complexity of games with high player counts. You implied that fans of two specific games are to be looked down upon. You also implied that those who play games on PC are superior and capable of more, due to allegedly higher popularity success of games with higher player counts.

My point was that games with low player counts are more popular on consoles than ones with high counts.
Click to expand...
I mean, sure. A couple of smaller scale games happen to be the best sellers. Its the same on PC. Also, each individual console sold 3 times more copies of BC2 than PC (according to VG charts) for a combined total of 6 times more. Even considering that steam and other digital services were probably excluded from their totals, the general sales trend reports from the opening weeks (see: PC version accounts for 16% of opening week sales in UK) indicate it was still very much outsold on PC. The market is large, it likes good games. If good games are offered, they will be bought. Also, its unfair for me to say that MAG flopped. It was pretty successful, selling over 1 million. It just didn't blow up like BC2, because its overall lacking some focus and consistency.

If COD and Halo wanted higher player counts they easily could have them, so there must be a reason why they choose not to do so.
Click to expand...
They could have them sure. Easily? maybe, maybe not. MAG was a huge technical feat, not without concessions.

And you also you have to consider that more doesn't mean better. Halo has a specific focus, aesthetic, and feel that its going for. That does not at this time include a large scale.
I always felt that despite supporting 58 players or whatever, BF2 played best with 40 or so players. Just before the point at which they would add extra flags to the maps. The extra flags threw off the balance and spread out the focus too much. It would also get a little crazy due to jets and tanks spawning too quickly...
-------------------------
the following is a response to user jonneymendoza. He opted to insert his comments into my quoted text and since quotes here don't stack, I could not quote him without heavily modifying his post. So instead, you can read the original post here: http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1037146816&postcount=1788

* MAG flopped because it is ultimately lacking focus and doesn't deliver the "feel" expected with 256 players. I also find it funny that that its alleged similarities to SOCOM are the reason for it flopping. SOCOM is a console/PS3 exclusive. So by that logic, if anyone were to love MAG, it would be those same console/PS3 players. But that's not the reason MAG failed.

For such a "big" game, its remarkably small in focus. Yes, it stresses teamplay and coordination a lot. But it ends up tying you so closely to your squad that you don't always feel like part of a huge team. maps, modes,and the way you play all mostly keep everyone separated out into little chunks, so its not as common as you might think to have large confrontations and I spent many matches feel sort of "lonely", despite there apparently being a ton of players on the map. There is also no real unity to your greater team, so its luck if your 8 man chunks are pulling their weight and its difficult to make up for those that aren't. The game can be quite fun when everything comes together, but its often not that great because its common that one or more of the core elements isn't working so well.

* In light of this, many other games are more popular, because they deliver more consistently on their promised gameplay and are therefore better paced. Team based or not. Some of those games may be more "simple", but a fund experience is a fun experiences. I personally am not so hot for the style of CoD's main modes, but I recognize that its consistently delivering on its promises. I did almost buy Black Ops because the game types offered in the Wager Match mode sound awesome. They are things that I wish every game had.

*Yes its true that people like to play stuff that's pretty. That's often the chief complaint from PC gamers in regards to console games. But I'm not sure what the point was here. Yep, the PC can do theoretically do graphics that consoles can't. But you gotta pay for it. Also, the dualshock 3 has something like 18 buttons. If you can't make ARMA II/any game work on 18 buttons, that's ridiculous and do not see how lacking buttons can be cited as a problem for consoles.

*all versions of Bad Company 2 currently use dedicated servers. Yes, this includes the console versions. The player count limitation has nothing to do with a networking limitation on the consoles. Its all about the ram. The Frostbite engine has large packets due to physics, semi dynamic destruction, and fairly large scale and its also pretty advanced in the visuals department. They just can't make it all fit into 256 Megabytes of RAM.


---------

AND BACK TO BF3

I'll probably play this one on PC, because the player count parity on consoles is game changing. For BC2, the differences were easier to ignore, because lesser graphics and a change of input device don't change the core gameplay. The console versions of BF3 are still only going to have 24 players and thus, smaller versions of the maps. This is fine for a "Rush" type mode (rush is awesome BTW), but BF conquest isn't real until you have roughly 40+ players. Drawing down the maps even more for BC2's conquest still didn't preserve the true conquest experience. There are some cool conquest maps in BC2, but they are ultimately a concession to limited team sizes.

I hope they deviate from "real" life a bit with the story and setting so that we can have more opportunities for amphibious vehicle use. driving an amphibious vehicle out to the U.S. Carrier in the Bay of Oman with that graphics engine is going to bring a tear to my eye and a tightness to my pants. The deck cannons tear into the armored shell, but not before I let free a missile!
 
Last edited:
chameleoneel said:
ok but you get to come in and attack? You implied that there is something wrong or inferior with people who play games on consoles. You implied that they are simple and cannot handle the possible higher complexity of games with high player counts. You implied that fans of two specific games are to be looked down upon. You also implied that those who play games on PC are superior and capable of more, due to allegedly higher popularity success of games with higher player counts.


I mean, sure. A couple of smaller scale games happen to be the best sellers. Its the same on PC. Also, each individual console sold 3 times more copies of BC2 than PC (according to VG charts) for a combined total of 6 times more. Even considering that steam and other digital services were probably excluded from their totals, the general sales trend reports from the opening weeks (see: PC version accounts for 16% of opening week sales in UK) indicate it was still very much outsold on PC. The market is large, it likes good games. If good games are offered, they will be bought. Also, its unfair for me to say that MAG flopped. It was pretty successful, selling over 1 million. It just didn't blow up like BC2, because its overall lacking some focus and consistency.


They could have them sure. Easily? maybe, maybe not. MAG was a huge technical feat, not without concessions.
Click to expand...

Posts like this I can respond to.

I didn't intend to insult the COD or Halo games and their userbases...check my gamertag if you like to see that I actually do play them. My point was that games with higher player counts are just not as popular on consoles as they are on PC. Raw sales figures puts the console versions ahead of BFBC2 but I'd wager that more people are still playing it on the PC than console despite a new COD game since then. The 69,000,000 team action-requirement to unlock "Operation Hastings" was hit by the PC first and was way ahead of the console tally, with DICE electing to unlock it for consoles in spite of the target not being reached.

My main point or concern: why are some console gamers upset about the 24-player count? The sales and player use figures clearly put Halo and COD ahead of other games with higher counts. What did MAG sacrifice to make 256-limit? Graphics. That tells you a bit about the audience there. Graphics are obviously critical to PC gamers as well but they're not essential for an online FPS to do well; just look at Counterstrike. By your admission the consoles are unlikely to be able to handle a 64-player BF3. Would these gamers ask for further drops in graphic and audio quality to accommodate this, when (like it or not) there is no proven example that it will appeal to the majority?

I consider MAG a flop from a MP standpoint because the player base left soon after launch. Expecting loads of concurrent matches with 256 players in each one was always going to be a tough ask but its maximum level of activity should have been sustained longer than it was.
 
Plague_Injected said:
Posts like this I can respond to.
By your admission the consoles are unlikely to be able to handle a 64-player BF3. Would these gamers ask for further drops in graphic and audio quality to accommodate this, when (like it or not) there is no proven example that it will appeal to the majority?
Click to expand...

Im so hateful that I would laugh with giddy joy if DICE did this, lol.
 
http://www.computerandvideogames.co...ersion-looks-so-much-better-than-anticipated/

Battlefield 3 looks amazing from what we've seen but so far everything's been shown on PC. Is it going to look as good on console?

That's always hard to answer. We need to show pictures of it to make sure that when people see it they can judge for themselves. There are of course technical advantages with the PC. PC: brand new technology; Consoles: five year old technology, so of course there will be differences. Our job is to make sure that the core and the emotion of the game is exactly the same. We're not trying to build a lesser game on console. The interesting part is since we have the stretch goal of creating something amazing on PC, scaling that back to console gives us an advantage because we actually see stuff being run on the console today in Battlefield 3 that looks so much better than we anticipated just because we're aiming so much higher rather than trying to build a console game based on the competition or our latest game. We're building it aiming for the stars. We're seeing some really cool results.
Click to expand...

Tell us something we don't know. It would be ironic, if not fantastic, if all the publishers/devs did a u-turn in their attitude and started focusing on PC development to wring as much performance as possible out of current gen consoles.
 
randomhero58 said:
Haven't seen this posted yet. Apparently there's a confirmed demo: http://www.neoseeker.com/news/16263-battlefield-3-pre-release-demo-confirmed/

No source given other than an unspecified interview, so uh, take with a grain of salt.
Click to expand...

Battlefield 3 demo due prior to launch - Report [Update]

* By Tom Magrino, GameSpot
* Posted Apr 21, 2011 5:35 pm PT

[UPDATE] EA Dice executive producer ostensibly confirms publisher will release sampler of upcoming FPS before the game is out later this year; publisher says he meant beta.

[UPDATE] As it would turn out, EA isn't quite yet ready to commit to a pre-release demo for Battlefield 3. Responding to GameSpot's request for comment, an EA spokesperson indicated that Bach's comments pertained to the previously announced multiplayer beta for Battlefield 3, and not a demo as was previously reported.

GameSpot's original story can be found below.

Considering the massive popularity of the Call of Duty franchise, it's no wonder Activision hasn't pushed Infinity Ward and Treyarch to release pre-launch demos of their recent military first-person shooters to build hype. However, with Electronic Arts positioning Battlefield 3 as its Call of Duty killer, the publisher apparently will be pulling the trigger on a pre-release demo.

Speaking to MSXbox-World, EA Dice executive producer Patrick Bach reportedly confirmed that a demo for Battlefield 3 would be available prior to the game's launch this fall. Unfortunately, Bach's reply amounted to little more than an answer in the affirmative. As such, he did not offer any additional gameplay details or a specific release timing. EA had not responded to a request for comment as of press time.

Battlefield 3 will apparently be sending out skirmishers before the full assault.

Battlefield 3 will sport both a single-player campaign and an online component, which can be played with up to 64 players (for the PC version only). Battlefield 3 will support co-op play for its campaign and will let gamers pilot jets, among other vehicles. Additionally, Battlefield 3 will run on DICE's updated Frostbite 2 engine.

For more information, check out GameSpot's previous coverage of Battlefield 3.
Click to expand...
 
It's starting to sound like BF3 is pushing the PC FPS market back to what it once was. I could be wrong.
 
Given how long this generation of consoles have been out, devs should have been able to tap their full potential by now but I think the dollar signs have really held it back from happening. Publishers, I think, have been telling devs not to tap the full potential of these consoles so that the next game can be a little better and give the marketing guys more heft to throw around when marketing the game. I know that sounds conspiratorial but I wouldn't be surprised.

Really hope all the promises by DICE come to pass with BF3
 
USMCGrunt said:
Publishers, I think, have been telling devs not to tap the full potential of these consoles so that the next game can be a little better and give the marketing guys more heft to throw around when marketing the game. I know that sounds conspiratorial but I wouldn't be surprised.
Click to expand...

Post mortem on some of the bigger budget/important games dismisses this right away. It thinks its Eurogamer that posts in depth tech talk with the devs, after they've released.
 
I dont know about anyone else, but I played the shit out of the BF2 demo. Hopefully BF3 will do the same.
 
Rooble91 said:
I dont know about anyone else, but I played the shit out of the BF2 demo. Hopefully BF3 will do the same.
Click to expand...

I did too. I pirated the game, played it, then bought it, then bought it for a friend so him and I could play together
 
chameleoneel said:
Post mortem on some of the bigger budget/important games dismisses this right away. It thinks its Eurogamer that posts in depth tech talk with the devs, after they've released.
Click to expand...

I guess im probably retarded but who does "It" refer to in your post?
 
I also play the crap out of demos! BF1942 Wake Island! Remember that? How about the demo to Return to Castle Wolfenstien!? AHHH! My first online multi player war experience! "I'm an engineer".
 
mathewmatics said:
How about the demo to Return to Castle Wolfenstien!? AHHH! My first online multi player war experience! "I'm an engineer".
Click to expand...

The demo for that game taught me German, "Danke" and "Follow me, Schnell!". :p

That was the first game I ever wasted a lot of time playing online... and it was only a demo. I bought the full game later and didn't play it as much as I played the demo, lol. That beachfront castle map was epic, one of the best maps ever devised. Storming up the beach, blowing the walls to get into the castle, taking the forward bunker, working your way down to the objective, then back up to the radio room. Man, fond memories... makes me want to play it again, lol.
 
mathewmatics said:
I also play the crap out of demos! BF1942 Wake Island! Remember that? How about the demo to Return to Castle Wolfenstien!? AHHH! My first online multi player war experience! "I'm an engineer".
Click to expand...

I played BF1942 Wake Island demo one time and I think I ordered a fresh PC the next day. It just blew my system away at that time.
 
dioxholster said:
BF3 demo is a must so people can test out there system first before buying.
Click to expand...

So many people posting about their systems not being able to run this game. They're making an engine that is highly scalable so I'm pretty sure we arent going to have people not running this game. On top of that, I really think that our systems are a lot more capable than we realize. Crappy game code and crappy console ports have done this to us IMO.
 
USMCGrunt said:
So many people posting about their systems not being able to run this game. They're making an engine that is highly scalable so I'm pretty sure we arent going to have people not running this game. On top of that, I really think that our systems are a lot more capable than we realize. Crappy game code and crappy console ports have done this to us IMO.
Click to expand...

DX11-only does rule out a lot of videocards...basically any card released before the Radeon 5xxx series.
 
USMCGrunt said:
So many people posting about their systems not being able to run this game. They're making an engine that is highly scalable so I'm pretty sure we arent going to have people not running this game. On top of that, I really think that our systems are a lot more capable than we realize. Crappy game code and crappy console ports have done this to us IMO.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure about that. I have no doubt that BF3 is going to be more demanding than BC2 and there was a shit ton of people who couldn't/can't run that game with adequate performance. It's not just the vidoe card either, BC2 is very CPU demanding and BF3 is likely to be even more so.
 
Of course everyone will be able to play. But everyone wants to play it CRANKED.
 
If you can max out todays current games with good fps without issue, you will be able to run BF3 fine maxed. They aren't gonna make a game that runs like crysis1/warhead and alienate most of their would be customers, trust me. They want to sell a gazillion copies and they can't do that no matter how much it scales if it's only able to be run properly on 10% of the hardcore pc gamers rigs. Think from a business perspective for a minute guys. My educated guess is performance somewhere around BC2/vietnam/MOH albeit a little more demanding since 64 people and physics, better visuals and larger draw distance. Take a good look at MOH and thats a good indication (imo) what the game will be like in terms of visuals and slightly more of a performance hit. Somewhere around that.

Edit: I just want to be clear in that the viisuals I believe to be clearly better than we've seen from the frostbite engine to date. At least the videos we've seen so far seem to be the case. That said I don't believe it to be the performance killer Bf2 was when it launched.
 
Last edited:
IIRC, teh devs stated they dropped DX9 support because it allowed them to focus much more time and energy into optimizing the DX10/11 code. Hopefully that means that the graphics will be easier to render at high rez and detail.
 
pigwalk said:
Of course everyone will be able to play. But everyone wants to play it CRANKED.
Click to expand...
Definitely. My computer runs BC2 without a hitch but I'm definitely going to get a bigger monitor and probably a new video card just for BF2.
 
SLiGuy said:
Definitely. My computer runs BC2 without a hitch but I'm definitely going to get a bigger monitor and probably a new video card just for BF2.
Click to expand...

Think you'll run BF2 fine mate ;)


But yes i agree, bigger screen u2711 maybe, and GTX580 at least.
 
i hope my core i7 870@4ghz/sli 470's can keep up in bf3 on my single 24" 1920x1080 some what maxed in dx11 :D
 
ebeattie said:
IIRC, teh devs stated they dropped DX9 support because it allowed them to focus much more time and energy into optimizing the DX10/11 code. Hopefully that means that the graphics will be easier to render at high rez and detail.
Click to expand...

they also dropped dx9 completely because the dx10/11 api already had the same features dx9 allowed and were far more optimized then the dx9 api.

at least now i won't have to listen to people bitching about how running the game in dx9 instead of dx10 or 11 gives them 5-10fps more.
 
We need the PS4 or xbox720, would cost less than building a new PC or even upgrading my PC now.

As long as there is keyboard and mouse support that is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top