[Dresden]

More news!

Frostbite 2.0 trailer and information:

http://www.bluesnews.com/s/118416/fr...er-bf3-details

[green.pixel]

Details from Game Informer:

Aiming for CY Q4 2011 release
-Concept for BF3 has been in the works for years, waiting on proper tech to seamlessly come together
-Frosbite 2.0 is the culmination of this tech, entirely re-written
-Lighting sounds neat, one "probe" contains more lighting information than an entire BFBC2 level.
-Level destruction is going to be "believable" but basically everything is destructible.
-Character animations powered by ANT, what EA Sports uses.
-AI characters and multiplayer characters have different animation sets
-No more "gliding" animations that look off, animation realism is a focus
-Captured their own war audios (bullets, tanks, helicopters, etc) at different distances to ensure realism
-Better audio cues for certain actions, more easily able to listen for threats
-Plan on better, more immediate post release content
-More unlocks than BFBC2
-Dice trying to find a good balance between customization of your character and not having "pink rabbit hat(s)"
-4 classes
-Will talk about squads "later"
-Looking into a theater mode but can't talk about it
-Will have co-op
-There will be a kill-cam but it can be turned off
-BF3's team is almost twice as big as the team for BFBC2
-They want the pacing of the single player mode to be balanced, with highs and lows. Makes the comparison to a song vs a guitar solo.
-Part of the single player mode takes place in Sulaymaniyah - Iraqi Kurdistan.
-"Fuck" will be used often, so M rated for sure
-There will be an earthquake in a level. The destruction sounds very impressive. 7 story building collapses, looks very well done
-Significant narrative that goes with the SP mode
-More than one setting, you're not in the middle east for the whole game
-PC version is lead version
-Why 64 players for PC only? No complains from the console crowd.
-No mod tools at release. Maybe none down the line either. Frosbite 2.0 is complex and mods tools would have to be dumbed down, so does Dice really want to put their time to that or would it be better spent elsewhere?
-Original story, not based on Bad Company at all.

Significant narrative? Singleplayer campaign should completely be redundant in a true BF game. EA sure wants to take on CoD.

Squad/commander talk "later"?

Four classes only? Medic OP again?

No mod tools? Didn't they say that Frostbite 1.X's toolchain was a nightmare to work with, but since a lot of EA studios are using Frostbite 2.0, they\ve spent huge ammount of money and man-hours making the tools easily usable. Well, I guess they want to sell stuff post-release.



What Battlefield 3 needs to avoid

Top 10 things we wish to see in Battlefield 3

[hoom]

Needs:
-128 player MP
-Decent view distance &/or a visibility/camouflage system
-Bolt action weapons
-Sub-machineguns that can't snipe you from across the map
-Machineguns that have a chance of hitting anything
-AA weapons that have a chance of hitting anything
-Spitfires, Me109s & Yak9s
-Moving ships & subs

Or in summary to be cancelled & a proper sequel to 1942 made instead

[Scott_Arm]

To be honest, mod tools isn't a big deal to me anymore. Vaporware mods are pretty common, because to make a mod that's of the same quality as a professional studio takes an incredibly long time. If they feel they cannot properly support them mod community with free tools, then it's probably best they skip that. The last thing you want is some crappy free tool set that can't properly deliver the same quality as the tools they use in house. If they can divert those resources to making the game better, then I'm ok with that.

[NRP]

I hope BF3 has decent anti-air tanks. The ones in BF2 weren't really up to the task imo.

[Bludd]

I hope jets are easier to take down than in BF2.

[Squilliam]

Oh so whats this? I only knew of Battlefield 1942 and that futuristic version. Are you guys saying that some other Batlefield series existed?! WOW.

[Scott_Arm]

Originally Posted by Squilliam

Oh so whats this? I only knew of Battlefield 1942 and that futuristic version. Are you guys saying that some other Batlefield series existed?! WOW.

This is a joke, right?

[L. Scofield]

No modding tools is disappointing. Everything else sounds good, though.

EDIT: From the magazine:

"Destruction 3.0

...

With the Frostbite 2 engine, nothing on the battlefield is safe from destruction. In the demos we watched, an earthquake ripped apart the city streets, and a seven-story structure collapsed in a plume of dust particles and rubble. When an RPG is fired at a building, the force of the explosion causes rippling splash damage as it would in real life, breaking windows throughout the blast radius and tearing the facade into hundreds of pieces.

All I can say is: O M G

[Scott_Arm]

God damn. Someone send me money, please!

[NRP]

Originally Posted by Squilliam

Oh so whats this? I only knew of Battlefield 1942 and that futuristic version. Are you guys saying that some other Batlefield series existed?! WOW.

You can't be serious.

[Neb]

FB2 seems very very impressive. PC version getting 64 player support is also great though I wonder if they will have a substitute for tracergun from BFBC2. I sure love to use the tracergun and each round bring down lots of helis with it.

[Silent_Buddha]

Very cool. A proper single player campaign means I'll probably get it where I otherwise wouldn't bother.

I hope the destruction is greatly advanced from BF:BC 2. While interesting in that one, it was still really basic, wooden, and completely unconvincing.

Hopefully this will be the first game that does destruction well with convincing physics. Red faction came close, but their buildings seemed to all be made of balsa wood when parts went flying and bouncing around.

Regards,
SB

[homerdog]

Destruction in BFBC2 may not be impressive tech wise, but it allows for some interesting strategies. It's also really intense to be sniping out of a 2nd story window only to see the tank turn on you at the last second, blowing out the foundation from under you.

[Neb]

Yeah it opens up for tactical opportunities and also makes camping a dangerous act. You can also deform terrain at camp entrances to make it hard for tanks to plow ahead.

[Scott_Arm]

I don't know. I find the destruction in Bad Company 2 pretty much makes every other shooter seem boring. It's not incredibly complex, but it looks cool, and it really does change strategy on a lot of maps.

[Bludd]

I love the destruction in BC2 and I am salivating at the thought that it may be even better in BF3.

[green.pixel]

Battlefield 3 won’t include Commander feature

Originally Posted by Scott_Arm

To be honest, mod tools isn't a big deal to me anymore. Vaporware mods are pretty common, because to make a mod that's of the same quality as a professional studio takes an incredibly long time. If they feel they cannot properly support them mod community with free tools, then it's probably best they skip that. The last thing you want is some crappy free tool set that can't properly deliver the same quality as the tools they use in house. If they can divert those resources to making the game better, then I'm ok with that.

People are still playing BF1942/Vietnam/2 mods. Mod tools give games a lifespan. Developer has a game with a community, gets free marketing in the form of fan sites and high profile status, content and ideas to draw upon in next projects if they want, and potential new talent to recruit. What DICE is doing here is in complete contrast with Tripwire and RO2, for which there is 3 mods in development, each of which is nearly a new game in itself.

The previous editorial didn't touch much on the subject of mods and community-created content, but that's another area where the success of console games is threatening the open-ended nature of the PC gaming experience. Combine increased broadband connectivity with the existing payment structures already in place for the consoles and you have an easy avenue for publishers to make money from selling post-release content directly to the consumers.

PC modders and content creators don't fit into this system, so their efforts are pushed aside to make room for five-dollar content packs that can quickly turn a $60 game into an $85 or $90 game. Compared to the nearly endless succession of free Neverwinter Nights modules or Civilization scenarios, it's tough to see much value in more centralization and greater publisher control.

http://pc.ign.com/articles/106/1061221p2.html

[repi]

Originally Posted by Bludd

I summon repi to this thread! Tell us about Stuff (tm) and Things (tm) that relate to the tech in this game.

Your summon spell was successful!

We have 5 talks at GDC'11 about tech details in various areas, so try and hold on until then

[NRP]

Originally Posted by Silent_Buddha

Very cool. A proper single player campaign means I'll probably get it where I otherwise wouldn't bother.

You know, it wouldn't kill you to man up and play some MP every once in a while (well, it might actually ).

[Mobius1aic]

Originally Posted by green.pixel

Battlefield 3 won’t include Commander feature




People are still playing BF1942/Vietnam/2 mods. Mod tools give games a lifespan. Developer has a game with a community, gets free marketing in the form of fan sites and high profile status, content and ideas to draw upon in next projects if they want, and potential new talent to recruit. What DICE is doing here is in complete contrast with Tripwire and RO2, for which there is 3 mods in development, each of which is nearly a new game in itself.


http://pc.ign.com/articles/106/1061221p2.html

Why not give developers the ability to buy mod tools if they want to get into it? Yes, it's a barrier in a way, but it does make modding possible. Charge $100 or something like that for complex mod tools, with a free mod tool for those who want to do very basic stuff. DICE could also create a "BF marketplace" that could give mod developers an outlet for their talent, and with a royalty, an extra way to make some money for DICE as well as those mod makers, if the mod creators choose to sell the mod. While I'm sure the idea would put some off people, I could see it working quite well, especially for high quality mods that are worth $5 or even more. Project Reality, Forgotten Hope 2, and AIX all come to mind for very high quality BF2 mods, with First Strike being a very notable and highly successful BF2142 mod.

100,000 mod downloads x $5.00 cost = $500,000 x {hypothetical 20% royalty fee for DICE} = $100,000.

Bump the mod cost to $10 and DICE's 20% royalties jump to $200,000. I don't see why modding can't be lucrative for both the modders and the original game developers, especially when the mod tools could be sold for a higher amount of money.

[RobertR1]

Wow at removing the commander feature! The level of depth it added to BF2 was amazing. It's redistribution efforts in Bad Company are very poor and simply dumb down gameplay so the reasoning given is quite mind boggling.

[Scott_Arm]

Commander was a pretty cool feature, but to be honest, I rarely ever saw it used properly or effectively. I was hoping it would be there, but there are a lot of other things I'm way more excited about than the return of the commander position.

[Scott_Arm]

Originally Posted by green.pixel

People are still playing BF1942/Vietnam/2 mods. Mod tools give games a lifespan. Developer has a game with a community, gets free marketing in the form of fan sites and high profile status, content and ideas to draw upon in next projects if they want, and potential new talent to recruit. What DICE is doing here is in complete contrast with Tripwire and RO2, for which there is 3 mods in development, each of which is nearly a new game in itself.

I guess I don't care about mods because I'm usually onto something new and different by the time the mods are ever released.

[green.pixel]

Originally Posted by Mobius1aic

Why not give developers the ability to buy mod tools if they want to get into it? Yes, it's a barrier in a way, but it does make modding possible. Charge $100 or something like that for complex mod tools, with a free mod tool for those who want to do very basic stuff. DICE could also create a "BF marketplace" that could give mod developers an outlet for their talent, and with a royalty, an extra way to make some money for DICE as well as those mod makers, if the mod creators choose to sell the mod. While I'm sure the idea would put some off people, I could see it working quite well, especially for high quality mods that are worth $5 or even more. Project Reality, Forgotten Hope 2, and AIX all come to mind for very high quality BF2 mods, with First Strike being a very notable and highly successful BF2142 mod.

Or they could follow the Valve model of growing the community and which would keep people buying the full game for years instead of nickle and diming people with DLCs and map macks.

"You buy the product, you get the content," Team Fortress 2 designer Robin Walker told us. "We make more money because more people buy it, not because we try and nickel-and-dime the same customers."

"[In multiplayer games] the content you're playing is being created by the players you're playing against, so the more people that get into the game, the more content you're going to have," Valve's Charlie Brown concurred.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/va...charge-for-dlc