BATTLEFIELD 3's Lead Development Platform "Switched" To Consoles In Mid-Production, DICE GM Karl-Mag

Gutted to hear about certain things with BF3. I am glad now i held out from purchasing it.

I was hoping for BF2 with updated graphics/weapons. The beta left me skeptical about the game so I did'nt purchase.

There are increasingly fewer decent sequels these days on the PC, such a shame.
 
InKursion said:
Battlefield 2 had its faults, sure, but at its core the game had a fundamentally different design ethos to BF3. It refused to award average or even mediocre play with tons of superfluous and rather pointless awards; it refused to pander to the attention deficit reward-pathways of the console generation with 101 unlocks and deadweight weapons-- adding unnecessary levels of choice and customisation into a game (and with it the attendant problems of balance, which we are seeing play out right now with the current night-vision bandwagon). BF2 kept it simple and you genuinely had to learn how to play every class. I feel that in BF3 all you need to do is unlock a mid-level weapon, deathmatch up to 100 kills and then use your Predator-vision to go 30-5 on every map in every round (this is what me and all of my previous clan-mates have been doing for the last week... at first with a wide-grin on our faces, but eventually with the tired boredom that comes when you sicken your appetite in such a way).

You mention being an 'old time BF' player - you're not the only one. I've played pretty much every FPS game that has been worth playing in the last 10 years. My chief disappointment with BF3 is that it has been continually hailed as a 'real' PC game, a successor in the line of PC-made games for PC-bred enthusiasts... but it is a far cry from it (no pun intended). It's a console game that had a few bits of excess eye-candy and technological show-off wankery added in to please the "omfg i have teh l33tz gaming rig" PC crowd. What of the actual gameplay is up to the standard of, say, Call of Duty 1/2, or Team Fortress Classic, or Counter Strike, or (even!) Battlefield 2? -the game it was supposed to at least inherit, in spirit? Nothing. It's vapid and vacuous. After a week of play I honestly feel like I have seen, learned and played all there is to offer in the game. I'm already at a point where I can go 5:0K/D in every round because of my weapon unlocks and customization options (hello imbalance, hello the downfall of giving gamers too much choice and fancy), and - hell - nothing else really matters, does it? Win/Loss isn't even worth paying attention to because the team-work and communication in the game is a joke (how do you even call for a medic/ammo? Absolutely pathetic), and it's pretty much down to the luck-of-the-stack in most pub servers.

So, putting it simply: good games are those with learning curves, skill gradients; games that makes demands of the player as well as implicitly trying to entertain and keep them content - games that aren't afraid to be a little difficult and a little exclusive by design. BF3 displays nothing of that design philosophy, so it falls flat in my humble estimation.
Click to expand...

Well said. This is the kind of post that I can accept. You've been critical about the game without dribbling "omg console portzzz!111".

You make some pretty reasonable points. I do think that "games that aren't afraid to be a little difficult and a little exclusive by design" are sadly a breed that is pretty much dead. I haven't seen an FPS game that really does a good job of this since the Q3 days.
 
Maps are disappoint. Spawing on nade and rocket spam makes me rage a little. The objectives are too few and too close. There are far too many choke points on some levels which lead to meat grinding boredom. There is little need for teamwork, and little teamwork apparent on public servers. Some of the gadgets are freakin awful in relation to balance.

BE ADVISED, BF3 isn't BF2, but it's OKish, OVER
 
InKursion said:
Battlefield 2 had its faults, sure, but at its core the game had a fundamentally different design ethos to BF3. It refused to award average or even mediocre play with tons of superfluous and rather pointless awards; it refused to pander to the attention deficit reward-pathways of the console generation with 101 unlocks and deadweight weapons-- adding unnecessary levels of choice and customisation into a game (and with it the attendant problems of balance, which we are seeing play out right now with the current night-vision bandwagon). BF2 kept it simple and you genuinely had to learn how to play every class. I feel that in BF3 all you need to do is unlock a mid-level weapon, deathmatch up to 100 kills and then use your Predator-vision to go 30-5 on every map in every round (this is what me and all of my previous clan-mates have been doing for the last week... at first with a wide-grin on our faces, but eventually with the tired boredom that comes when you sicken your appetite in such a way).

You mention being an 'old time BF' player - you're not the only one. I've played pretty much every FPS game that has been worth playing in the last 10 years. My chief disappointment with BF3 is that it has been continually hailed as a 'real' PC game, a successor in the line of PC-made games for PC-bred enthusiasts... but it is a far cry from it (no pun intended). It's a console game that had a few bits of excess eye-candy and technological show-off wankery added in to please the "omfg i have teh l33tz gaming rig" PC crowd. What of the actual gameplay is up to the standard of, say, Call of Duty 1/2, or Team Fortress Classic, or Counter Strike, or (even!) Battlefield 2? -the game it was supposed to at least inherit, in spirit? Nothing. It's vapid and vacuous. After a week of play I honestly feel like I have seen, learned and played all there is to offer in the game. I'm already at a point where I can go 5:0K/D in every round because of my weapon unlocks and customization options (hello imbalance, hello the downfall of giving gamers too much choice and fancy), and - hell - nothing else really matters, does it? Win/Loss isn't even worth paying attention to because the team-work and communication in the game is a joke (how do you even call for a medic/ammo? Absolutely pathetic), and it's pretty much down to the luck-of-the-stack in most pub servers.

So, putting it simply: good games are those with learning curves, skill gradients; games that makes demands of the player as well as implicitly trying to entertain and keep them content - games that aren't afraid to be a little difficult and a little exclusive by design. BF3 displays nothing of that design philosophy, so it falls flat in my humble estimation.
Click to expand...

The problem is you are comparing a game that has been out for years, has many skilled players and therefore has a natural flow to the teamwork on most servers, to one that has been out a week, with a lot of new blood being introduced to the franchise. You cannot compare the two yet because the player base is not of the same quality and maturity.

You're probably forgetting what the beginning was like for the other BF games. BF2142 for instance, had the best team play of them all, but it was horrendously unbalanced in some instances, and it was never patched to address those issues.

Also, the only reason you can do such "l33t" kills at the moment is due to the immaturity of the player base which is still discovering unlocks, the right equipment to use, and the entire layout of each map. You have a head start because of your past experience in shooters, not because BF3 is "OMGEASYMODELOL".

Also, some of these maps are ridiculous with 24 players. With 5 points on a map, it translates to having only 2 players per team per point, which is ridiculous. You can quite easily tell that this was a design decision, not a compromise for console hardware to have the maps designed this way. With 5 points per map on the PC version, it means that if players are spread out, there are still interesting battles to be had. BF2 may have had more capture points, but the focus of the fighting was only ever on a couple of them.

It seems that you really wanted was BF2 with a fresh new graphics engine, which is ironic considering you think BF3 is for ""omfg i have teh l33tz gaming rig" PC crowd.". It's certainly not considering how well it runs on 3+ year old hardware anyway.

The BF games have always been about dumb fun. Being easy to get into. The BF games didn't have anything deep to master about them, you have to go to other games for that. The BF series has never been solid or bug free enough to be taken seriously as a competitive gaming title. You have to go to Counter Strike for that. I suggest you wait for CS:GO.
 
PapaLazaru said:
But it is a good game. Sorry if you don't think so but the majority think it is.
Click to expand...

And the "majority" (if you are simply applying the capitalist logic of success based on sales figures, or numbers playing) also think that Miley Cyrus makes good music, and that Dan Brown writes great fiction, and that Call of Duty is the best game franchise of all time. It's misleading to say that just because a lot of people are content, the game has therefore met all of its intended goals. The truth is that most gamers will be content with anything - they're seeking mindless entertainment, not interrogating a game with a critical and discerning eye. It's the opinions of the "enthusiast" minority that matter more here, just as an evaluation of Rembrandt's major work means more coming from an art historian than a plebe from the street (a poor analogy I know - I am not equating video-games with fine art, but the point stands). I'm glad that a lot of people are enjoying BF3... but I do not. I only expect of the game that which EA/DICE said was going to be delivered... and it has not been. As already said in my first post, the majority of people seem to be immediately impressed by the graphical splendour and visual spectacle, and not so much the actual core mechanics of gameplay. I am merely asking what will come in 3 months time when everybody has had ample time with all the unlocks and vehicles and maps and when everyone surely has their own trusty night-vision scope. Will the gameplay hold the same replayability as BF2? Surely not.
 
Last edited:
That's a bit of a fallacy, though... it's the same eager optimism and high hope that sees people continually pre-ordering/buying the latest Call of Duty iteration, hoping it'll recapture something of the playability of CoD4 (now abandoning all hope of ever having another vCod/Cod2). It rarely, if ever, delivers on its promise. I've lost count of the amount of titles I've purchased over the last 3-4 years (BC2 and now BF3 included) that I just hoped, somehow, in some little way, would recapture that 'halcyon days' feeling. DICE are clearly cashing in on the brand appeal to the older PC audience, too, as has been evidenced in all of their empty marketing/PR spiel about a "true PC successor", which has very quickly changed to "oh, err, we shifted focus to consoles half-way through development to please our publishers". Anyone who has "played and loved" BF2 will be in for a lot of heartache.
 
In the history of Battlefield patches, the only expectation I have of DICE is that they'll issue a few customary kneejerk reactions according to the whim of the community Forums (i.e. terribly informed decisions) and then will all but abandon the game for their next money-spinner-- perhaps an expansion pack, but certainly not one that will address existing game problems or gameplay mechanics; only one that will add more content for a handsome fee. DICE took about 4 years to issue the dolphin-diving patch for BF2, and by then half of the community had moved on, anyway. Laughable.
 
I am a "veteran" battlefield player.

Played since BF1942. Loved BF2.

And I absolutely adore BF3.

I think it's bloody fantastic!

I do not care what platform development was focused on in the end (even tho I am die hard PC). I just care that this game is ******* epic!

It in no way feels like a console port.

I have had so many great Battlefield moments so far, and it hasn't even been patched yet! People seem to forget how bad/buggy all Battlefield games have been upon release.

This is quite possibly the smoothest, least buggy battlefield launch ever!

AND I LOVE IT :D

Also Raven, STFU, you're loving the game, admit it and deal with it.
 
this is really really weird, could swear I was saying this in the Official Crysis II thread and getting met with some hated PC elitist resistance. who gives a flying frack if the game is multi-platform, just shut up and enjoy it for the love of god.

in the Crysis II thread everyone was in utter uproar because the game didn't support Direct X 11, which made such a massive difference (not) in the grand scheme of things, didn't make a difference that the game looked good anyway.

the whole 'console port' thing is just used by the PC elitists to describe a game that didn't meet their hyper inflated expectations, because it is so simple to blame the console market for this at the end of the day, sorry to tell you all this but PC gamers are never happy with anything, that is why the PC market is so niche these days because at the end of the day would you want to develop a game for a bunch of people who are going to nitpick at everything that is remotely wrong and not appreciate all the things that are right? :rolleyes:
 
Gashman said:
this is really really weird, could swear I was saying this in the Official Crysis II thread and getting met with some hated PC elitist resistance. who gives a flying frack if the game is multi-platform, just shut up and enjoy it for the love of god.

in the Crysis II thread everyone was in utter uproar because the game didn't support Direct X 11, which made such a massive difference (not) in the grand scheme of things, didn't make a difference that the game looked good anyway.

the whole 'console port' thing is just used by the PC elitists to describe a game that didn't meet their hyper inflated expectations, because it is so simple to blame the console market for this at the end of the day, sorry to tell you all this but PC gamers are never happy with anything, that is why the PC market is so niche these days because at the end of the day would you want to develop a game for a bunch of people who are going to nitpick at everything that is remotely wrong and not appreciate all the things that are right? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Well said
 
Davepen said:
I am a "veteran" battlefield player.

Played since BF1942. Loved BF2.

And I absolutely adore BF3.

I think it's bloody fantastic!

I do not care what platform development was focused on in the end (even tho I am die hard PC). I just care that this game is ******* epic!

It in no way feels like a console port.

I have had so many great Battlefield moments so far, and it hasn't even been patched yet! People seem to forget how bad/buggy all Battlefield games have been upon release.

This is quite possibly the smoothest, least buggy battlefield launch ever!

AND I LOVE IT :D

Also Raven, STFU, you're loving the game, admit it and deal with it.
Click to expand...

+1 I LOVE IT

I never played any of the BF games until BFBC2, can't say I'm a BF veteran.

Absolutely loving this game at the moment, the best £40 I have spent this year.

I actually bought BF 2 when it was first released but couldn't get into game.
 
Without reading 5 pages, mainly the OP

The game is superb, I can play it on Ultra with AA and AF wtih 50+ fps, thats great news. Good fps, good graphics, great game and I don't see anything wrong with it myself.

There always will be hype around such a big game, such as people worrying about their PC spec etc.
 
And still the overwhelming focus of responses is on graphics, performance and other hardware-egoist oriented bullshittery. I don't care what quality xyz set-up can run the game at-- I care about the gameplay itself. The only relevance that 'console developed game' has here is in how it impacts (to the detriment) the PC gameplay experience. A game designed for a console suffers from several (necessary) hallmarks that simply are not welcome on a PC game, namely: small, cramped maps with not much open space; over-simplified vehicle controls and thus poorly balanced or implemented vehicles (i.e. what must work for a £100 joystick must also work for a PS3 controller); overwhelming focus on graphics and sound and superficialities because basic core controls/gameplay has an ultimate limitation in, again, the controller design (unrelated: this is why you don't see lean/peek in later CoD games); and pointless gimmicks, novelties and over-abundance of choice, resulting in poor balance and a diluted core gameplay (which we see in the unlocks and weapon attachments system, a surefire sympton of the console virus).

I think BF3 would be a superlatively better game without all of the above design decisions.

Did any of you suffer and miss the option of sticking 6 different scopes on your AK-47 in BF2? I mean, really?
 
Last edited:
Indeed... BF2 had much fewer weapons and you had to actually work to unlock them, learning how to use your current weapons to the best of their ability in the process. BF3 throws so many guns at you that half of them gather dust, or else are never given chance because 2/3 others are clearly far superior in almost every single way. Adding so much choice into the games - whether it be in weapons, vehicles, unlocks, attachments, or whatever - just adds unnecessary complexity, and the inevitable balancing problems. I want my FPS games to pit me against an opponent in a battle of skill, reflexes, aim, movement, positioning, all things in other words that are directly tied to MY INPUT; I don't want my FPS games to become a top trumps competition where most encounters are decided by who is using the most appropriate gun, or to do with who is using the night-vision scope. It's a design decision that initially impresses many ("ooh a new unlock! sweet!") but, ultimately, leads to very bad gameplay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom