Battlefield 3

[Vegeta897]

Again with the comparisons to games like Op Flashpoint that are heavily realistic military sims. Battlefield has never and will never be that kind of game...

Bro, you're putting words in my mouth. OFP and BF don't need to be the same kind of game for my comparison to make sense. I'm absolutely not saying that they should try to make the BF series more like OFP or ArmA. (looking at your post ray man) We're all familiar with the gameplay of Battlefield games. It's the reason the series is so popular. It's what made the series. Now they're throwing in shit from other games just to eke out a sp component that they know is going to appeal to people because of the success of CoD. You want to talk about bad comparisons? Battlefield games have never and should never be like CoD. And yet here we are. I'm saying they could have created an SP component that was true to the BF style of gameplay instead of 'copying' from another genre of fps.

 

[ray_MAN]

Problem is, Operation Flashpoint and ArmA type games won't appeal to the masses. Nowadays, the masses don't want über realism. Dice and EA are businesses and they're looking to sell as many games as possible. And if that means making the game less realistic and more cinematic, they will do it. People want a run-and-gun style game where they're along for the ride - something short and sweet. They may lose the "hardcore" FPS players like you guys, but they will gain five more customers from the 15 year-old kids who hear "about this cool new thing in Battlefield 3!!!"

Right, veg, I don't want them to make Op Flashpoint eiher - I'd actually be disappointed if they did. But I'd rather have CoD gameplay than 64 bots who run around looking at each other like flamingos at the watering hole. That's what Battlefield SP used to be. That shit sucked. I don't even know why they made it.

 

[Ennui]

Bro, you're putting words in my mouth. OFP and BF don't need to be the same kind of game for my comparison to make sense. I'm absolutely not saying that they should try to make the BF series more like OFP or ArmA. (looking at your post ray man) We're all familiar with the gameplay of Battlefield games. It's the reason the series is so popular. It's what made the series. Now they're throwing in shit from other games just to eke out a sp component that they know is going to appeal to people because of the success of CoD. You want to talk about bad comparisons? Battlefield games have never and should never be like CoD. And yet here we are. I'm saying they could have created an SP component that was true to the BF style of gameplay instead of 'copying' from another genre of fps.

I see what you're saying now, but singleplayer that is "true to the BF style of gameplay" seems like a pretty subjective idea to me. BF games have never been like COD... until they started having singleplayer components in BC and BC2.

I hate COD as much as I hope you do, but we're going to have to live with the fact that it's a franchise that makes billions and that other franchises that want to make billions are going to have to make some concessions in terms of appealing to the same market.

Again, all opinions I've expressed so far are really oriented towards what I'm expecting from multiplayer. That's what will make or break this game to me.

 

[Vegeta897]

Well I guess the core of the issue is just what the developer cares about (making money or making a faithful sequel), and I guess how much the publisher is pressuring them into making a game that sells. I know you're just in love with my Arma comparisons by now, but companies like BIS deserve respect for not pandering to the masses by changing their games to appeal to the mainstream audience just to make more money. (Like what Codemasters did when they stole the Operation Flashpoint name by making Dragon Rising etc.)

And yeah I am well aware that the SP in past BF games was totally useless. But I would still prefer them not spending any time on it (hell, just leave it out completely, don't even waste time programming bots) than spending so much time and resources on it that could be spent making the MP better. And the fact that it seems like all they're marketing right now is the SP really gives me a bad impression.

Glad you understand what I was saying, I'll be quiet again now.

 

[Ennui]

Hate to tell you this, but EA and DICE are the same company - DICE is called EA DICE now and is 100% owned and operated by EA. The publisher is the developer. The DICE team is still pretty much all Battlefield veteran developers, but marketing etc is done by EA and I'm sure EA HQ has a LOT of sway/input.

From what I can tell they're trying to reinvent the Battlefield series as a COD competitor that's more realistic, larger scale and immersive than COD and has the same 64 player vehicle oriented multiplayer. You could be unhappy but as long as the multiplayer remains intact (which I see no reason to believe won't happen) I personally see no problems with that. What constitutes a singleplayer or coop campaign in a Battlefield game was pretty much a blank slate up to this point anyway.

 

[ray_MAN]

And I don't know what you're all on about. The only thing that reminded me of CoD in that video was the little bit of slow motion. It seems to me that every modern-day military FPS will either be compared to MW or to ArmA/Operation Flashpoint... Shame.

 

[Vegeta897]

Well nobody really knows much about the SP of course, but I'm willing to bet you're going to see a lot of un-bf2 like things in there. Invisible walls/arbitrary barriers... Overall lack of open ended strategy and free roaming. Things that are core in the MP. You can't tell me it's not possible for them to make an SP that had these core things. No, it's just easier and more profitable to make it like CoD. Don't deny that's what's going on here.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

I unarchived the BF forum section and moved this in there. Seemed sensible, no?

 

[ray_MAN]

Of course it's safe to assume that.

We've never had single-player in a Battlefield game (Bad Company doesn't count) so there really is no precedent. Plus, I really can't think of many military FPS games that have successfully pulled off a free-form style. It's not only difficult to do, but if done incorrectly, it's not fun!

 

[ríomhaire]

Logic, in my Halflife2.net?

 

[Ennui]

I unarchived the BF forum section and moved this in there. Seemed sensible, no?

Yeah, I was going to poke you about it in a month or two closer to release but this seems like an appropriate time as well.

 

[Stigmata]

This only "looks like COD" insofar that it's a military shooter with guns. I'm having trouble thinking of what, exactly, people want the singleplayer campaign to be like if it's not this? There's this, there's BF2/1942's "multiplayer with bots and a loading screen paragraph", there's scripting out every single event of every mission, and there's turning it into a Romanian cartoon about dogs and stardust. Not a whole lot of options if you're trying to make a linear-sequence campaign that has backstory.

According to this quote, anyway: ""You're almost tricking me into a position where I'm telling you about the story!" laughs Patrick Bach, Battlefield 3's senior producer."

 

[Lucid]

I'd personally rather have the multiplayer with bots type singleplayer.
Great for getting the lay of the land on the maps and such.

 

[Vegeta897]

No need to call that SP though, just put the ability to add bots in mp and create a local session.

 

[Viperidae]

Can someone tell my why they're justified in expecting this game's MP will be good? With evidence? Where is the MP footage? What are the new gameplay mechanics they're planning on adding in MP? What's the 'goal'?

And don't ****ing say '64 player BF2' or I will shit down your neck.

 

[Lucid]

Also, here's some gameplay finally!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-d4zPapOtW4&feature=player_embedded

 

[Krynn72]

I'm going to jump on the anti-hype machine as well. I am now really skeptical of the MP component being really good. Why would they hide it from us? The Battlefield series has always been about the MP, it is their strong suit, and the only reason anybody ever buys their games. Given that fact, why would they show us singleplayer footage first? If they wanted to hype up the game, they should show us something good. Something new that shows people how great the MP is in their game. THATS ALL ANYBODY GIVES A **** ABOUT. So why give us footage of a direct CoD rip-off singleplayer campaign? Its like they took all the wrong lesson's from CoD's success.

If the multiplayer was really something special, even a retarded marketing director would know to start showing multiplayer features to people first. This screams of mismanagement of the franchise, with the people in charge having no idea what their consumer base wants. They're just trying to go after the CoD fanbase, and they will fail at taking any of it away from Activision. I'm now starting to think that there will be little innovation to this game, and it will simply be bigger map versions of CoD with vehicles. If so, then count me out.

EDIT: Lucid, that video is what sparked this whole discussion. It was posted on the last page (if you're using 40 posts per page).

 

[Stigmata]

I think the goal is a greater emphasis on dynamic close-quarters to medium-range infantry combat. In one interview, they talk about how the upgraded destruction broadens the gameplay - you can level entire structures now, and the singleplayer seems to have earthquakes as a central narrative component. They're also using upgraded Mirror's Edge tech to manage player movement, though whether that means the ability to climb the environment or simply make your first-person walking animation look good has yet to be seen.

BC2 has sold over 5 million copies. DICE has no reason to copy COD's gameplay mechanics.

[edit] They're probably showing singleplayer footage first so they can save their best for last. If they showed MP first, nobody would give a shit about the SP.

 

[knut]

This only "looks like COD" insofar that it's a military shooter with guns. I'm having trouble thinking of what, exactly, people want the singleplayer campaign to be like if it's not this? There's this, there's BF2/1942's "multiplayer with bots and a loading screen paragraph", there's scripting out every single event of every mission, and there's turning it into a Romanian cartoon about dogs and stardust. Not a whole lot of options if you're trying to make a linear-sequence campaign that has backstory.

According to this quote, anyway: ""You're almost tricking me into a position where I'm telling you about the story!" laughs Patrick Bach, Battlefield 3's senior producer."

or they could not follow any of these and just think up something new. it's what they're paid for, right?

to me, it looks like COD because it has a **** load of scripted animations to get people wet, quick time events, combat that involves literally staring down the barrel towards your enemy and a generic LOOK OUT RPG scene where the player is thrown to his feet. it's textbook modern warfare, only not the real kind - the COD type. someone said earlier that it's obviously being marketed towards the crowd that want that, but that ain't enough of justification to buy into it. that's it, isn't it? the standard is now big explosions, military jargon and enemies behind cars for us to gun down. we lubed up and took it for the COD titles and now the battlefield franchise is going to do the same, because it sells.

**** that.

 

[Escaep]

Was I the only one who noticed "Pre-Alpha"?

 

[TwwIX]

I'll reserve my judgment until i see some genuine multiplayer gameplay footage.

 

[ray_MAN]

What's the problem - it has slow motion and a narrative story line? Scripted sequences move games along and make for good stories. Every game worth a damn has them.

 

[Vegeta897]

BC2 has sold over 5 million copies. DICE has no reason to copy COD's gameplay mechanics.

But this isn't BC3, it's BF3. BC2 didn't have the classic BF style gameplay.

 

[Stigmata]

or they could not follow any of these and just think up something new. it's what they're paid for, right?

to me, it looks like COD because it has a **** load of scripted animations to get people wet, quick time events, combat that involves literally staring down the barrel towards your enemy and a generic LOOK OUT RPG scene where the player is thrown to his feet. it's textbook modern warfare, only not the real kind - the COD type. someone said earlier that it's obviously being marketed towards the crowd that want that, but that ain't enough of justification to buy into it. that's it, isn't it? the standard is now big explosions, military jargon and enemies behind cars for us to gun down. we lubed up and took it for the COD titles and now the battlefield franchise is going to do the same, because it sells.

**** that.

It's not about "thinking up something new", it's about the ways you're creatively limited when you decide to develop a certain kind of game with a certain kind of atmosphere.

I don't think many, if any, of those animations are scripted. DICE is using EA's ANT technology (which is essentially real-time body interaction with the environment) used in the new FIFA and NBA games, coupled with their own internal upgrades to it which are apparently based on Mirror's Edge. And I bet the combat looks simple because this guy was playing on Recruit difficulty. Can you imagine how disastrous it would be if he died during a live gameplay session, when they're clearly trying to show off the particle effects, combat dialogue, and first-person body animations at the end? Or if he had to whip his perspective around at a hundred miles an hour to make sure that nobody got off the one or two necessary shots to kill him on a harder difficulty?

As for thinking up interesting stuff, they've stated that earthquakes are a major story component. And that the new destruction engine allows you to level entire buildings. Earthquakes + realistic destructible architecture + dynamic body-simulation animation + singleplayer campaign = something that is potentially awe-inspiring.

 

[knut]

What's the problem - it has slow motion and a narrative story line? Scripted sequences move games along and make for good stories. Every game worth a damn has them.

i'm not against them, i'm comparing what we saw in that trailer to a COD game. the scripted sequences looked right out it, from the stacking up against a door to the feet flung in the air from an explosion. i've seen it so many times that when something like this gets released what am i supposed to do, be blown away by the fact a soldier elbow bashes a door? obviously not, because the only thing people have good to say about this trailer is ''yeah graphics look great, looking forward to multiplayer!!''

 

[Krynn72]

What's the problem - it has slow motion and a narrative story line? Scripted sequences move games along and make for good stories. Every game worth a damn has them.

Not when deployed this way. The scripted sequences simply break the flow of gameplay. Whats a slow motion rpg explosion that takes away your control of the character going to do to move a story along or tell a good story? Nothing. Nothing at all. Its just CoD "look at my cinematic penis" jizzfest that only idiots who don't know what the word "game" means will enjoy.

[edit] They're probably showing singleplayer footage first so they can save their best for last. If they showed MP first, nobody would give a shit about the SP.

Nobody gives a shit either way. Thats my point. Its a sign that the people handling the game have no idea what their prospective customers want.

 

[Vegeta897]

But they do know what's going to make them a boatload of money.

 

[Krynn72]

And for that they can suck my dick. Maybe I'll add them to my signature. Its been awhile since "F*ck EA" has been in anybody's signature.

 

[Escaep]

i'm not against them, i'm comparing what we saw in that trailer to a COD game. the scripted sequences looked right out it, from the stacking up against a door to the feet flung in the air from an explosion. i've seen it so many times that when something like this gets released what am i supposed to do, be blown away by the fact a soldier elbow bashes a door? obviously not, because the only thing people have good to say about this trailer is ''yeah graphics look great, looking forward to multiplayer!!''

You need to stop comparing everything that happens to COD. In real life the military stacks up on doors before they go in, and although I've never been shot by an RPG I'd assume that if one goes off that close to you you'd get blown back. What should they do when they enter doors? Utilize the destruction and send an AT4 round through the door, then enter? Do they catch the RPG's by hand? Just because COD does something doesn't mean other games can utilize what is used in real life. Does COD have full destructible environments? Amazing sound? Realistic animations? Does every game that includes iron sights copy COD because COD has iron sights too?

 

[ray_MAN]

i'm not against them, i'm comparing what we saw in that trailer to a COD game. the scripted sequences looked right out it, from the stacking up against a door to the feet flung in the air from an explosion. i've seen it so many times that when something like this gets released what am i supposed to do, be blown away by the fact a soldier elbow bashes a door? obviously not, because the only thing people have good to say about this trailer is ''yeah graphics look great, looking forward to multiplayer!!''

Well then I pose the question to you: What different would you like them to do?

I honestly feel there isn't much more to do with war games, while keeping them fun and interesting. War is hell, but it's also boring sometimes. Some patrols and missions go without a bullet being fired. If you're going to make a game, you should make it as ridiculous as possible, but keep things semi-genuine.

 

[Evo]

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/03/02/battlefield-3-revealed-at-gdc/

http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/03/02/battlefield-3-first-impressions-and-screenshots/

Mmmm tasty Loving the smooth body movement

 

[Stigmata]

Not when deployed this way. The scripted sequences simply break the flow of gameplay. Whats a slow motion rpg explosion that takes away your control of the character going to do to move a story along or tell a good story? Nothing. Nothing at all. Its just CoD "look at my cinematic penis" jizzfest that only idiots who don't know what the word "game" means will enjoy.

Nobody gives a shit either way. Thats my point. Its a sign that the people handling the game have no idea what their prospective customers want.

It's not about BF2's hardcore fans wanting to see multiplayer immediately, right now, god damnit **** the singleplayer SHIT. It's about them creating a more positive reaction overall by revealing things in a specific order. They've spent millions of dollars on the singleplayer alone speaking in time spent developing, so showing the singleplayer last could have a very real financial impact on the game's total profitability. DICE are doing the smart thing here. By the time you've seen the multiplayer footage, you won't give a shit that the singleplayer was shown first.

 

[Krynn72]

You need to stop comparing everything that happens to COD. In real life the military stacks up on doors before they go in, and although I've never been shot by an RPG I'd assume that if one goes off that close to you you'd get blown back. What should they do when they enter doors? Utilize the destruction and send an AT4 round through the door, then enter? Do they catch the RPG's by hand? Just because COD does something doesn't mean other games can utilize what is used in real life. Does COD have full destructible environments? Amazing sound? Realistic animations? Does every game that includes iron sights copy COD because COD has iron sights too?

Dude... you are clearly missing the point. The point is that the characters are scripted to go stack up on that door. That specific door. At that specific time. Its not gameplay, its a cinematic. The rocket hitting the car and knocking you down isn't gameplay. Its a cinematic. I guarantee you that in general when a rpg hits next to you, you wont get knocked down by it. Its that one specific part where they want a cinematic. Maybe, to keep things easier for people who don't understand, we should stop saying "scripted" and start saying "cinematic." The game functions because of scripts, yes, but scripts and scripted sequences are very different things.

It's not about BF2's hardcore fans wanting to see multiplayer immediately, right now, god damnit **** the singleplayer SHIT. It's about them creating a more positive reaction overall by revealing things in a specific order. They've spent millions of dollars on the singleplayer alone speaking in time spent developing, so showing the singleplayer last could have a very real financial impact on the game's total profitability. DICE are doing the smart thing here. By the time you've seen the multiplayer footage, you won't give a shit that the singleplayer was shown first.

By the time I've seen the multiplayer footage I'll have been convinced by the shitty singleplayer footage to NOT get the game. You don't serve people turdsauce and then work up to delicious pasta sauce. The turdsauce ruined their appetite.

 

[knut]

It's not about "thinking up something new", it's about the ways you're creatively limited when you decide to develop a certain kind of game with a certain kind of atmosphere.

which david simon did with generation kill amongst the endless other iraq/afghanistan war films and tv shows. it's entirely possible, he just took a realistic perspective on it and look at it now, it's probably one of the most liked of them all, or at least by crowds who give a damn about good storytelling and atmosphere aka, the wire fans. rightfully so!

I don't think many, if any, of those animations are scripted. DICE is using EA's ANT technology (which is essentially real-time body interaction with the environment) used in the new FIFA and NBA games, coupled with their own internal upgrades to it which are apparently based on Mirror's Edge. And I bet the combat looks simple because this guy was playing on Recruit difficulty. Can you imagine how disastrous it would be if he died during a live gameplay session, when they're clearly trying to show off the particle effects, combat dialogue, and first-person body animations at the end? Or if he had to whip his perspective around at a hundred miles an hour to make sure that nobody got off the one or two necessary shots to kill him on a harder difficulty?

i understand the practice and practicalities of showing footage on a setting which doesn't show the player die (which, whilst your point is valid, is usually only used for actual live presentations such as at conferences. with a video like this, i'd expect the creators of the game to be a little adept at finding their targets. THAT SAID: is this video edited from GDC? if so, you're point is then correct), but i'm not talking about that. recruit, hard, legendary... it's still dudes in black pyjamas behind cars. sick to ****ing death of middle eastern war scenarios placing dudes with AK's in plain site. watch a youtube video or something and take a look at how the war in iraq is really fought or don't place your ****ing game there at all.

As for thinking up interesting stuff, they've stated that earthquakes are a major story component. And that the new destruction engine allows you to level entire buildings. Earthquakes + realistic destructible architecture + dynamic body-simulation animation + singleplayer campaign = something that is potentially awe-inspiring.

i don't give a **** about an earthquake. i've seen buildings coming down, i'm open to the idea of them being leveled down fully but until i see it, i don't believe it. the bad company titles buttered up building destruction and it wasn't until 2 that they actually had them collapsing, and even now it's not very good. well, it's alright.

You need to stop comparing everything that happens to COD. In real life the military stacks up on doors before they go in, and although I've never been shot by an RPG I'd assume that if one goes off that close to you you'd get blown back. What should they do when they enter doors? Utilize the destruction and send an AT4 round through the door, then enter? Do they catch the RPG's by hand? Just because COD does something doesn't mean other games can utilize what is used in real life. Does COD have full destructible environments? Amazing sound? Realistic animations? Does every game that includes iron sights copy COD because COD has iron sights too?

i'm fully aware of how a squad would enter a building or what might happen when someone gets hit by an rpg, you know why? because i've seen it so many times before and as i said, if this is there idea of making a hard-hitting trailer to impress people, why should i be taken aback by these things? i'm sick to death of seeing it.

to relate your question to rayman's, what would i do to change the game and/or stop comparing it to COD? not make a ''quasi-realistic'' war game set in the middle east involving a squad of soldiers fighting in an urban environment. it's ****ing dull, stop it. make something new, or don't make it all. want to drop a load of empty bodies in a location with vehicles and weapons and let it loose online? fine, let me go kill some folk over the internet, it's good fun, but try and build a genuine campaign out of it? when it comes to writing and design, i'd like something fresh and original to keep me occupied.

 

[Stigmata]

Dude... you are clearly missing the point. The point is that the characters are scripted to go stack up on that door. That specific door. At that specific time. Its not gameplay, its a cinematic. The rocket hitting the car and knocking you down isn't gameplay. Its a cinematic. I guarantee you that in general when a rpg hits next to you, you wont get knocked down by it. Its that one specific part where they want a cinematic. Maybe, to keep things easier for people who don't understand, we should stop saying "scripted" and start saying "cinematic." The game functions because of scripts, yes, but scripts and scripted sequences are very different things.

The animation technology used in BF3 is based on EA's ANT, which is FULL BODY SIMULATION. You have no basis for saying that these animations are completely scripted. Of course the EVENT is, because they want that enemy to shoot that truck with an rpg 15 seconds after that street battle, but by all appearances the knockback animation is completely dynamic.

[edit] you guys we're being ridiculous here, myself included...

which david simon did with generation kill amongst the endless other iraq/afghanistan war films and tv shows. it's entirely possible, he just took a realistic perspective on it and look at it now, it's probably one of the most liked of them all, or at least by crowds who give a damn about good storytelling and atmosphere aka, the wire fans. rightfully so!

You're making huge extrapolations based on one promotional gameplay video.

i understand the practice and practicalities of showing footage on a setting which doesn't show the player die (which, whilst your point is valid, is usually only used for actual live presentations such as at conferences. with a video like this, i'd expect the creators of the game to be a little adept at finding their targets. THAT SAID: is this video edited from GDC? if so, you're point is then correct), but i'm not talking about that. recruit, hard, legendary... it's still dudes in black pyjamas behind cars. sick to ****ing death of middle eastern war scenarios placing dudes with AK's in plain site. watch a youtube video or something and take a look at how the war in iraq is really fought or don't place your ****ing game there at all.

i don't give a **** about an earthquake. i've seen buildings coming down, i'm open to the idea of them being leveled down fully but until i see it, i don't believe it. the bad company titles buttered up building destruction and it wasn't until 2 that they actually had them collapsing, and even now it's not very good. well, it's alright.

What I'm trying to get you to see is that the earthquake destruction is going to have a large impact on the singleplayer gameplay, which will at least in some way make up for the first-glance generic setting of urban modern combat.

 

[Krynn72]

The animation technology used in BF3 is based on EA's ANT, which is FULL BODY SIMULATION. You have no basis for saying that these animations are completely scripted. Of course the EVENT is, because they want that enemy to shoot that truck with an rpg 15 seconds after that street battle, but by all appearances the knockback animation is completely dynamic.

ITS A CINEMATIC. A SCRIPTED SEQUENCE. It is not at all "by all appearances" completely dynamic. Its entirely forced and breaks the flow of the game. When you get close to the car a rocket blows it up and knocks you back. THAT IS A TRIGGERED CINEMATIC. It will not happen anywhere else in an actually dynamic situation. Mark my words.

Also, read the edit of my last post. I made a great comparison that I want you to read.

 

[knut]

You're making huge extrapolations based on one promotional gameplay video.

so are you re: earthquake impacting singleplayer, and we haven't even seen the earthquake yet.

What I'm trying to get you to see is that the earthquake destruction is going to have a large impact on the singleplayer gameplay, which will at least in some way make up for the first-glance generic setting of urban modern combat.

i'm a jaded gamer, and i think the last time i saw a game really change and divert from it's early release videos was half-life 2, and we all know why that all changed (and for the better, too)

 

[Lucid]

You guys need to chill.

It's DICE, they haven't made a truly bad game yet and multiplayer games are pretty much their specialty.

 

[ray_MAN]

Can someone tell my why they're justified in expecting this game's MP will be good? With evidence? Where is the MP footage? What are the new gameplay mechanics they're planning on adding in MP? What's the 'goal'?

And don't ****ing say '64 player BF2' or I will shit down your neck.

You guys need to chill.

It's DICE, they haven't made a truly bad game yet and multiplayer games are pretty much their specialty.

This!
Just as we trust Valve to make great games, Bethesda and Bioware to make great RPGs, we should trust DiCE to make a great multiplayer experience. They have said many times that much of their team is comprised of people who worked on BF1942 and BF2.

DiCE revolutionized the genre, and I think we're all losing sight of that because of two measly minutes of singleplayer gameplay.

And in regards to not showing multiplayer, has anyone thought that it's just not done yet?

 

[Stigmata]

If you guys want to assume this looks like shit because events in a game with a narrative are scripted to occur at specific times, I don't know what to say.