Battlefield 3 Won't Be "Consolized," Claims Developer

piscian18

piscian18

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
11,021
...heh. I'll believe it when it doesn't come out on consoles at all.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/104615-Battlefield-3-Wont-Be-Consolized-Claims-Developer


EA DICE developer Alan Kurz has reassured PC gamers that the next installment of the Battlefield series won't be "dumbed down" or "consolized," and that he planned to give the PC version Battlefield 3 the care and attention it deserved.

Posting on the EA forums, Kurz said that he had learnt an important lesson while working on the PC version of Battlefield: Bad Company 2, which was to treat the PC and console versions of a game the same when it came to gameplay. DICE originally designed the weapon handling in BF:BC2 with a PS3 controller, and each weapon had a certain degree of inaccuracy that was unnoticeable on a pad, but very obvious when playing with a mouse. Using feedback from the PC tests, Kurz redesigned the weapon handling to eliminate that inaccuracy and found that not only did it improve the game for the PC players, it made the console versions better as well.

That's not to say that there's no difference at all between playing games on a PC versus a console. Kurz said that the limited number of buttons on a controller meant that console interfaces had to be more elegant, and that while console gamers were not averse to deep systems, they had to be accessible. PC gamers, he thought, were more forgiving of complexity, but had much higher expectations and would react very badly to anything they felt had been ported over from a console.

Kurz's post met with a mixed response from forum users, with some taking it at face value, but the majority reacting badly to it, especially Kurz's claims that the gap between consoles and PC was narrowing. Some even went as far as to say that the very future of DICE was in danger if the PC version of BF3 wasn't exactly up to the high standards they demanded, presumably meaning that the financial impact of PC gamers shunning it would be disastrous. It's unlikely that these comments have any real bite to them though, and really only represent the views of a small, but loud, minority.
Click to expand...
 
I don't believe them but can we at least have the classes back to the way they were in 2142? The classes in BC2 were awful.
 
thats because while BC2 has the battlefield name it they are completely different games from the battlefield series.. but for as well as bad company series was done from being a true console game then ported to PC ill give them the benefit of the doubt on this one.. still pissed about what they did to BF2142 but oh well.. cant really blame them for releasing a game that was 3-4 years ahead of its time and the gaming community being a bunch of idiots and boycotting it..
 
It would be nice if they could get the developer's name right. It's Alan Kertz aka Demize99. I don't believe anything the retard says. He's a console kiddie. Since the release of BC2, he's only played on the PC like 3 times (and one of those times was because I personally was HOUNDING him on Twitter - eventually got a response "yeah I'm on PC right now"). Of course, during the beta he was apparently on quite a bit - but once the money has changed hands, they're gone.

Look at the state of the game. Look at how unbalanced the game is overall on the PC, particularly the Gustav. And then you've got AN-94, M60, MG3, F2000, G3, SVU (it's got a silencer and it's more accurate than the T88) and VADS. That's in addition to the lack of new content and the constant bugs, though both of those are likely not his fault.

Before anyone says BF2142 was balanced well by him, I'd agree with you, but remember that game had fewer weapons. In addition, Demize was a PC gamer back then, meaning he actually balanced the weapons on the platform they were intended to be played on. Don't forget that he was the one who dumbed it down - BF2 had 7 classes, and now we're down to 4. I strongly prefer more classes with a more specialized role and so do many others I've talked to. More specialized roles requires more teamwork and squad play, and that makes for a funner game.
 
I won't believe it. BF:BC2 was sub par to mediocre at best compared to FPS' of yesteryear.
 
I think BF3 is going to end up being a mix of old school BF and BC...
so we'll have slightly bigger and slightly more open maps so you can get more vehicles and such but the combat will be more like BC....

If BF3 doesn't follow what 1942/V/2/2142 did.... I will stop buying DICE games...BC2 didn't really do it for me and spent ages playing all the REAL BF games.

has to have, big, wide open maps, very good balance (like 2142) and none of this extreme run-n-gun with amazing accuracy from miles away crap. Not has fast paced either, like BC
 
eddieck said:
Before anyone says BF2142 was balanced well by him, I'd agree with you, but remember that game had fewer weapons. In addition, Demize was a PC gamer back then, meaning he actually balanced the weapons on the platform they were intended to be played on. Don't forget that he was the one who dumbed it down - BF2 had 7 classes, and now we're down to 4. I strongly prefer more classes with a more specialized role and so do many others I've talked to. More specialized roles requires more teamwork and squad play, and that makes for a funner game.
Click to expand...

They could have had just as many weapons or more if they didn't give the classes completely retarded stuff. All that needed to be done really was give Assaults MGs and give the Medics the AR/GL like it was in 2142. Instead medics became "Rambo Jesus" where they had assault rifles with 200round mags and better accuracy/damage, could heal themselves, and instantly revive fallen teammates back to full health and a state of momentary invulnerability. Assaults just chilled with the AN-94 on top of their ammo boxes and shot grenades everywhere until they nerfed 40MM nades into oblivion. Gustav was OP but they fixed it, Engineer is fine. Sniper is fine except for the fact that one sniper rifle, the GOL, completely outclasses every other rifle.

tl;dr DICE is fucking retarded.
 
*shrug*

I enjoyed the hell out of BC2 on the PC, as I did with 2142 before that and BF2 before that.
 
SixtyWattMan said:
Gustav was OP but they fixed it, Engineer is fine.
Click to expand...

Gustav was nerfed once and it's still OP. You can still run around with it as your primary weapon and kill everything in sight - well, everything except yourself.

SixtyWattMan said:
Sniper is fine except for the fact that one sniper rifle, the GOL, completely outclasses every other rifle.
Click to expand...

I almost want to say the sniper should require 10 headshots to kill, so then maybe we'd see less of the fucking POS camping furry creatures, but yeah. GOL and SV98 are pretty much the best right now - GOL has the best sight and SV98 has the fastest bolt and reload time, plus a 10 round magazine.
 
refraxion said:
I won't believe it. BF:BC2 was sub par to mediocre at best compared to FPS' of yesteryear.
Click to expand...

BFBC2 is also not a "Battlefield" game, it's a "Bad Company" game. Different franchise.

It'll be a good game, BF3. I'm willing to bet it will, at least. What BC2 was like is almost completely irrelevant.

Also VSS just took a shit on every other sniper rifle. Giant one. Right in their faces.
 
I have enjoyed all of the BF and BF:BC games on PC up to this point. I have no doubt BF3 will be great. Right now, I think BC2 is the best multiplayer experience out there,
 
eddieck said:
Gustav was nerfed once and it's still OP. You can still run around with it as your primary weapon and kill everything in sight - well, everything except yourself.
Click to expand...

It got a massive nerf and isn't nearly as good against vehicles as the RPG is. Before the nerf it had like double or triple the kill radius and was the best sniper weapon in the game.

BC2 has it's problems but it's still fun. Hard for me to say a game I played for hundreds of hours is bad.
 
SixtyWattMan said:
It got a massive nerf and isn't nearly as good against vehicles as the RPG is. Before the nerf it had like double or triple the kill radius and was the best sniper weapon in the game.
Click to expand...

It's not the best anti-tank weapon (it is the best anti-aircraft weapon with tracer lock-on and the fastest speed of all rocket launchers, which may be useful against pilots with flares), but it is far better than it should be at anti-infantry. With the explosive damage specialization, it has a splash radius of something over 3.0m. It is stupidly overpowered. Not only does it need a nerf of the splash radius, they also need some system to prevent you from running with rocket launchers, similar to how RTCW or DoD: S did it.
 
BC2 is fun, but I have to agree that it wasn't on the same level as the fps's of the early/mid previous decade as far as gameplay dynamics. It is one of the best newer multiplayer experiences around.

I do blame consoles for what I feel is a step backwards in gameplay, so if they can make good on this promise, I think we'll get exactly what most of us want.

It's funny. Whenever I see an anti-console post or a console vs pc debate around here, I think, it's not so much that PC gamers hate console games, it's more that we hate how console games have affected PC games.
 
http://forums.electronicarts.co.uk/18686418-post94.html

Sounds like a rehash of what that guy said. Except he goes on about the accuracy saying all guns should fire the same and if you aim at the target your bullet should hit it, regardless of the gun. Sorry but if they add that shit into BF3 like it is in BC2, then there's no point. I'm sick of getting sniped with LMG/SMGs from farther than the bullets should even be able to travel. This is a FPS, work on the shit that matters.
 
Catch22sk8r said:
i'd have no issue if bf3 was just bf2 on the new engine with some new maps.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see that as well. They need to distance themselves from call of duty. So the closer they can get to the scope of BF2 or preferably BF1942 the better. I'm optimistic and regardless I did get my moneys worth out of BC2.
 
Biznatch said:
Except he goes on about the accuracy saying all guns should fire the same and if you aim at the target your bullet should hit it, regardless of the gun. Sorry but if they add that shit into BF3 like it is in BC2, then there's no point. I'm sick of getting sniped with LMG/SMGs from farther than the bullets should even be able to travel. This is a FPS, work on the shit that matters.
Click to expand...

I feel the perfect system for LMGs in BF3 would be similar to BF2, but with a twist. You pretty much have to be prone to shoot somewhat accurately, but also add a short time between standing and going prone of either no shooting or very inaccurate shooting. This would have the benefit that squad play is a necessity as you couldn't go lone wolf when your primary weapon takes a second or two to get ready to fire. During a firefight, your squad would be covering for you while you get down and get some support fire going.

Of course, that only applies if BF3 has players with IQs over 3. Hopefully it won't attract the CoD crowd.
 
What do you all think about suppressive fire? I'm undecided myself - I think it would be cool to see your accuracy going down a bit when there's constant fire (say LMG burst fire in a prone position) going past your head and body, but BF isn't a milsim. Opinions?
 
Tzzird said:
*shrug*

I enjoyed the hell out of BC2 on the PC, as I did with 2142 before that and BF2 before that.
Click to expand...

Ditto.

I've enjoyed every single BF game that's ever been made. As for people bitching about weapon inbalance in BC2; it's just childish and retarded. If there's a gun so great you'd be a fool not to use it, why not use it yourself?

I think it's more psychology, here's a quick draft cognitive dissonance scale for justifying dying all online games;

5. They're better than you.
4. The situation got the better of you.
3. The game was at fault somehow (lag).
2. The other person's gun is too good.
1. They're cheating.
 
Biznatch said:
http://forums.electronicarts.co.uk/18686418-post94.html

Sounds like a rehash of what that guy said. Except he goes on about the accuracy saying all guns should fire the same and if you aim at the target your bullet should hit it, regardless of the gun. Sorry but if they add that shit into BF3 like it is in BC2, then there's no point. I'm sick of getting sniped with LMG/SMGs from farther than the bullets should even be able to travel. This is a FPS, work on the shit that matters.
Click to expand...

yeah that would suck, some of the best parts of bf2 were learning how each gun fires differently than the other whether it be pkm vs rpk , or ak vs m16 vs l85a1 it felt rewarding mastering each gun and knowing the strengths and weaknesses in different situations.
 
spine said:
Ditto.

I've enjoyed every single BF game that's ever been made. As for people bitching about weapon inbalance in BC2; it's just childish and retarded. If there's a gun so great you'd be a fool not to use it, why not use it yourself?

I think it's more psychology, here's a quick draft cognitive dissonance scale for justifying dying all online games;

5. They're better than you.
4. The situation got the better of you.
3. The game was at fault somehow (lag).
2. The other person's gun is too good.
1. They're cheating.
Click to expand...

#2 is HUUUUGE in BC2. I've had people bitch about every weapon I've ever used in every circumstance I've ever used it EXCEPT for taking down helicopters with the M136. The only thing that ever gets said about that, if anything at all, is something along the lines of "nice shot". The M136 is truly an anomaly in that regard, and it's probably my most favourite thing in BC2.
 
Man, I miss the 1942/BF2 days.

As someone else had said, even if they remade the same maps with the new engine, and added a few more maps, I'd be happy with that alone.

Not consolized... well, I'd not count on it, but lets hope they've enough dedication to the "actual" BF franchise to do it justice on PC.

BC2 was alright, but too many aspects were simply not appealing and the game really had no longevity. Seems like it's been a problem for anyone to get online game/online portion of a game right these days, for too many reasons that weren't as problematic in the past.

I certainly hope BF3 turns out well enough to be solid and quality enough, with a strong enough aesthetic to establish a large, lasting experience and community.
 
I dont beleive a word EA says, ever.
If BF3 ends up being like BF2 I will probably buy it, but only after non-magazine reviews come out.
 
This thread sounds like a bunch of kids who had their candy taken away. You guys want Steak at the price of McDonalds, you expect to buy the game and the developers keep pushing out new content for free. Do you take your car back every year and demand that the manufacturer give you something new every year? No wonder your getting shit on.

News flash these guys don't work for free.

Oh and the realism part....you can't complain about realism and then turn around and want to use your high speed mouse and keyboard which is about the most un-realistic controller input, shooting a gun isn't point and clicking.
 
spine said:
Ditto.

I've enjoyed every single BF game that's ever been made. As for people bitching about weapon inbalance in BC2; it's just childish and retarded. If there's a gun so great you'd be a fool not to use it, why not use it yourself?

I think it's more psychology, here's a quick draft cognitive dissonance scale for justifying dying all online games;

5. They're better than you.
4. The situation got the better of you.
3. The game was at fault somehow (lag).
2. The other person's gun is too good.
1. They're cheating.
Click to expand...

Here is the problem with BC2 guns going by the best for each class.

Assault - AN-94 Highest damage AR and most accurate. Why use any other AR? There is no point because every other AR is trash compared to the AN-94.
Engineer - No problem with this class actually.
Medic - The whole class is the problem. LMGs outclass ALL other automatic weapons. They not only do as much or more damage than most other automatics but can carry up to TEN TIMES the ammo in one mag. Without the necessity of prone to fire these guns in BC2 they are nothing but better assault rifles.
Recon - The GOL What happens when you make all sniper rifles do the same amount of the damage but make one more accurate by a large margin? The GOL.

Game is pretty much AN-94 vs PKM vs UMP vs GOL vs 870.
 
spine said:
Ditto.

I've enjoyed every single BF game that's ever been made. As for people bitching about weapon inbalance in BC2; it's just childish and retarded. If there's a gun so great you'd be a fool not to use it, why not use it yourself?

I think it's more psychology, here's a quick draft cognitive dissonance scale for justifying dying all online games;

5. They're better than you.
4. The situation got the better of you.
3. The game was at fault somehow (lag).
2. The other person's gun is too good.
1. They're cheating.
Click to expand...

Spewn said:
#2 is HUUUUGE in BC2. I've had people bitch about every weapon I've ever used in every circumstance I've ever used it...
Click to expand...

Hit it right on the head. Period. Game over.

When I use the G3, I do just as good with the M60 while medic, or with the 416 as assault. Style of play, tactics, teamplay, and attitude is all what matters :p

Cannot wait for BF3. It's hard to even imagine BF2 or 2142 with a destructible environment. I would be in shock staring at all the pretty pixels!
 
Demize is a bit of a tit to say the least. I remember when people complained that the helicopter countermeasures on the pc version didn't work, Demize tested it on the 360 version and proclaimed that they were working fine. Wasn't untill the second patch or so that they finally started to work. :rolleyes:

BC2 isn't bad but theres so much that could have been better, helicopter flight ceiling is stupidly low, too many gimmicky unlocks, no options for sensitivity outside of one main setting instead of having options for on foot and ground\air vehicles. Draw distance being pretty low = tnos of pop=up...even the friggin flags on conquest disappear when you get about 20 feet from them. Maps piss me off as they all have tons of choke points and tanks get wrecked pretty fast. I miss wide open maps like elalemain where you could have decent tank battles without some prick tracer darting you..
 
Last edited:
As long as there is:

-dedicated servers
-lan support
-16v16
-prone
-AA/AF
-FOV adjustment
-custom map support
 
It's worrying that they talk about consolization in terms of things like weapon spread in the gameplay and not the more simple glaring problems like low FOV angle and gimped team sizes etc. If they can make BF3 64 player like 1942, or even more, that would really give gamers a reason to buy it, it'll never happen while it's in development for consoles as well.

It's good they actually acknowledge the consolization though, that's the first step to getting it fixed!
 
spine said:
Ditto.

I've enjoyed every single BF game that's ever been made. As for people bitching about weapon inbalance in BC2; it's just childish and retarded. If there's a gun so great you'd be a fool not to use it, why not use it yourself?
Click to expand...

This is true to some extent, no doubt, but at the same time along that reasoning, nothing in a competitive video game can be considered imbalanced as long as it is available to every competing side. Yes it is true that if both sides of the equation are balanced, then the game could be considered balanced, but if some factors in the equation are much larger (more important), then they can be considered imbalanced relative to your other options. Of course not all weapons should be equal either. With the player progression in these fps's, weapons should obviously get more powerful, but the scaling should be reasonable. Weapons can also change in power relative to each other quite a bit based on situation.

All I'm saying is game devs have to create a system with a lot of variety, but at the same time all of the different options still have to be viable. Yes people tend to blame the system more than they do themselves, when in reality the system is completely balanced....but that shouldn't imply that the system is perfect.

(sorry, just finished linear algebra homework! :p )
 
I fear the game will let me down. I really want there to be a non-explosive game play mode. all bf2 is just people spamming nades at flag points. If bf3 had destructible building the game will turn into choppers,jets and tanks kills all cover. flys around spawn points gunning you down as you spawn you get zero cover to live for four seconds. there was this one night in bf2 where these two pilots stole one of our choppers and they kept spawn camping our whole team in sharqi pennisula for ten mins it made me uninstall the game. I hate the sand and snow storms in bc2 always gets me killed its almost like people with crappy settings see throw it. I can't see crap but once there 20 feet way they can see me 100% its so flawed.
 
Chris_B said:
Considering how much prone has been whored out and abused in past bf games id doubt it.
Click to expand...

Yeah F*UCK prone. I'm sorry but walking into a server with 32 players prone crawling across the maps waiting for someone to twitch is not fun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top