Battlefield 3 Discussion Thread

part of the problem with crysis 2, aside from the "iffy" gameplay and definite step backwards from BC2 environmental interaction, is that the art design is poor. they put all this hard work into an engine which is capable of some really spectacular lighting and detail, and then made a really cartoony looking game with super-saturated colors everywhere and questionable level design...

anyway, they made a good engine, but the whole design of the game is just a mess. BC2 put a lot more effort where it was due. My hope with BF3 is that they retain that aspect of their games (solid game design, realism) and bring the graphical quality up to crysis 2 levels. Crysis 2 has no realism. I would say crysis 2 looks "dreamy" moreso than realistic - too much blur, too much color, too much HDR, etc.

 

Leaked footage from GDC! See it before it gets taken down...

YouTube - Battlefield 3 off-screen gameplay GDC 2011 (reup).

Edit: hope this doesn't violate rules or anything.

 

Well it's just some gameplay footage. Pretty low-res though. The particle lighting was fantastic.

 

Well it got taken down, could someone tell me what it was? Was it SP or MP?

 

single player..

showed player crawling through a vent, jumping out of it (with VERY NATURAL animation, you see his legs reaching out through the vent opening first, then a jump down into a crouched position before standing up), going into the open, shooting up some terrorists, manning a machine gun, an earthquake occurs (shows off entirely destructible environment well here, you see ground cracking etc, and large buildings collapsing, it all looked VERY real).

Then it showed the city bird's eye view with various lighting and times of day, and how natural it is. Also shows the particle lighting (how light interacts with plumes of steam / waste gas).

 

Nice summary. Although I was wondering why that chopper didn't fly away, didn't it see that building coming at it? Had a good ten seconds or more to get the hell outta there.

 

EXACTLY! Looks the same as killzone2 IMO, very similar in texture and lighting. Even the new resistance looks similar to Crysis 2. The thing about Crysis 2 is, they've managed to really push this generation of consoles to the limit, which is a good thing, the more you can run on less the better, but the art style does Crysis 2 no justice.

 

I honestly don't get why they are showing us the single player first. I couldn't care less about it as I will likely not be playing it unless I am VERY bored. I also don't care about the graphics; I care about multiplayer gameplay and nothing else. Why do they think everyone is dying to know about singleplayer in a franchise that has NEVER had singleplayer? They need to stop teasing us...

 

Here is the video :

Planete Battlefield • Afficher le sujet - [BONUS] 4 minutes de gameplay solo BF3

 

They undoubtedly advanced in the graphics department, but I think it would've been more beneficial for single player if they advanced the enemy artificial intelligence.

 

To what, FPS don't need some radical amazing AI, for what they are its fine, they shoot, duck, hide, run, roll ! I can't remotely think of anything else they could possibly add. Your killing nameless soldiers, following a slightly above par plot, and for the most part, everyones going to be playing ONLINE, with the most advanced AI you can find, except sometimes its just too easy .

 

As far as the system specs, just because it uses the same rendering technique doesn't really say much about the performance of the game or even the engine.

There is a list of games here that use deferred rendering:

Deferred shading - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Other games use forward rendering. Think about the vast variation in hardware requirements among all games not on that list.

BF3 could have milder or heavier requirements than crysis 2, it's really hard to make a judgment at this point.

It's also hard to say what the final AI will be like. The enemies in the short scene I saw didn't seem that intelligent, but I would still reserve judgment until we have seen something a bit more tangible (that scene was pre-alpha and extremely short and only showed a few seconds of enemies and was obviously more about the lighting and animation and effects, etc)

Either way, I'm more concerned about the multiplayer than the AI. I would prefer the resources to go there.

 

If the recommended sys reqs are what I think they are ( 2.0 quad core, GTX460, 4GB RAM ), then I think we will be able to play on 1080p. Not maxed, but yes, we will be able. IMO, the most important setting is textures and objects, and then comes lighting and then shadowing. Lighting is what you are always noticing, but shadows are passable. I think everyone agrees with me

So yeah, I hope I can squeeze 30 FPS in DX10 @ 1080p with settings and objects maxed, lighting medium ( preferably high ), shadows low.

Please DICE!!!

 

Watch this if you haven't. O_O
YouTube - Battlefield 3 - Fault Line "Bad Part of Town" Analysis

 

Considering my y460 struggled to play BFBC2 at 1920 x 1200 (when clocked well above 5730 levels), I don't think it will be possible to play BF3 at 1080P with a 5600-5700 series mobile card; there just isn't enough memory bandwidth.

 

I did pretty well on 1080p with a 5650 for BC2 on med/high settings so I'm confident the 5650 can handle BF3 on 1080p with low settings.

 

Well... I play BC2 at constant 40 FPS, and sometimes reaching 80, in 1080p. All high settings except shadows. It sometimes drops to 30-28ish when there are billions of explosions, tanks and infantry shooting at me.

EDIT : I have 1xMSAA and 16xAF

 

Leaked footage from GDC showing off same single player mission + Frostbite 2 engine tech.

Kotaku, the Gamer?s Guide

 

Yeah shadows cut the framerate the most. Still BC2 doesn't look good without max shadows imo.

 

IMO, I don't agree. The shadows is something you don't notice, like the shadows of buildings, trees, etc, and when you are engaging hard, you don't have time to "OMG DOSE SHADOESS R AWSUM".

So yeah, shadows in a FPS are kinda useless IMO

 

Agreed, shadow quality is one of those frills that are almost unnoticeable in most games, especially fps. In an fps the most you can hope for is to catch someones shadows around a corner or above you, and you really don't need much more than a blocky representation to tell you what you need to know. The difference between min and max shadows is so tiny if you are actually playing the game

 

In BFBC2 the shadows reduce the framerate a LOT for the negligible improvement in picture quality they give. I always keep shadows on low on my computers because I honestly don't pay attention to them at all and would rather have 15 more FPS.

 

Shadows and lighting are very important in making a scene look realistic by enhancing depth and giving an impression of a more believable 3rd dimension. You can notice this difference with an artists pencil drawing. If you look at a drawing done with pencil and hardly any shading and compare it to one the has much shading, you will see a significant difference. The one with heavy, well done shading will look like a real photo at a distance compared to the one that has hardly any shading or none at all, which would look more like a cartoon. Without shadows and lighting, games would almost look 2D..

EDIT: Here's a link to what shading can accomplish as far as realism.
Beautiful Pencil Drawings

 

Nobody denies that shadows make games look more realistic, we're saying that the difference visually between max and min shadows is not even close to worth the performance hit it costs you. Min shadows still gives you shadows that look decent enough while you are busy actually playing the game, esp. in a game like BF (or any fps) where things can be pretty fast paced.

Comparing penciled or 2D graphics to 3D games is just a poor comparison to make, we're talking apples vs rutabagas here.

 

This. THIS! Finally someone that understands what's important

 

in my opinion, shadow is what gives life to forms.

or maybe lighting.
either way, shadow is just as important as lighting imo.

 

yes this is real life tactics. In the military concealment does not mean your safe from harm. Infact that's why you see the military just blasting away with blind fire most of the time. Here's some unclassified footage of military weapons testing and the power of different weapons.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKhMOfaYwvE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w22M1DAQ59I&feature=related

 

FOr the shadow not being needed....

If you play competitively, you will NEED shadows... (not for the Graphics)

 

Nobody said that shadows aren't needed; just that they don't need to be on high.

 

Yep, and the "low setting" in BC2 is enough, since you see all important shadows ( houses, soldiers, trees, etc ).

 

This isn't an FPS from 7 years ago; with shadows on low essentially all of the same things cast shadows, they just don't look as nice. However, they still look perfectly fine when you are paying more attention to the enemies shooting you, so the FPS boost is more worth it for me.

 

Battlefield 3: Dice im Interview über Kampagne, Multiplayer-Bots, Server-Probleme und Call of Duty - Battlefield 3-Interview (englisch): Development, Singleplayer- and Multiplayer-Mode

An interview with Patrick Bach from DICE. The link is German, but the interview is all in English.

Bots are confirmed NOT going to be in BF3. I guess they figure it probably defeats the purpose of having a single-player/co-op campaign. Mr. Bach says bots were an "emergency solution" for Battlefield 2, and if they had more time or resources they would have done something better.

Also, no LAN play, but with no public server files, I figure that would be obvious anyway. On that note, who actually uses LAN for games these days? Worst case, you just get on the same router and use the internet anyway.

Some people will inevitably complain, but I personally don't think it's a big deal.

One interesting point I read was that they're planning the single-player campaign to help prep players for multiplayer:

Not a whole lot of information we didn't already know, other than confirmation of no LAN and no bots. Still, worth 5 minutes to read, I guess.

 

so according to the interview, they're basing the game of Battlefield 2, instead of Bad Company 2. I have bought Battlefield 2, and I don't even touch it because it has to much keys that you need to press to access important things such as weapons, equipment, etc. I own the Nostromo N52te speed pad and can't map all the necessary keys in Battlefield 2 onto it. On the other hand Bad Company 2 had simple controls similar to COD and all the important necessary keys could be mapped onto the Nostromo N52te, and that's the way it should be. I hope they don't screw this up and make the controls way to complicated....

 

It's a bit disappointing to hear that. BF3 should at least have a sandbox mode where players can get a feel for the weapons, and especially the aircraft. I don't like it when players, including myself, learn on the fly while others are trying to be competitive. I guess players can just join empty servers, but if it's early in a game's release those can be inconvenient to look for, not to mention the possibility of other players coming in eventually.

 

Sandbox mode would be awseome. BF2 had single player bots that you could practice with. That's what I did for a little while to learn maps and weapons.

 

If you're going to take it to the next generation then the way you interface with the game shouldn't just be advanced graphics and sounds, but also simplified controls. Amen.

 

I have deleted some posts
And have Subscribed to the thread
Stay on-topic

 

Not really. An advantage of the PC is the fact that there are a lot of potential control inputs available. In games that don't take advantage of this like BFBC2, you get the Q and E button being bound to too many things, which leads to a great deal of frustration.

 

This is so wrong opinion. Please don't let your post see HC PC Gamers it would be really messy

The advantage of the pc is complexity, look at pc oriented gaming forums, everything what's simplified is consolish, buy an xbox or ps3 if you want simple controls. PC needs to have more variety in interface and controls. Look at BF2 for example, great one! BF F2P is still complicated than BFBC2 for example. BFBC2 is just to simple comparing with BF2 and hope so BF3.

If that's what you're saying would be good, in couple of yrs we would have a game that will only play on one taster. Controller from NES will come back in fashion because "PC gamers needs simplified controls"

Sry but thats just plain stupid

 

I have an n52te as well, and I play BF2 just fine. You don't use every single key, and some of them overlap (e.g. the weapon selection with the number keys can also be accomplished by scrolling your mouse wheel). Between my n52te and my 5-button Mamba, I have everything I need.

Keep in mind that in addition to 15 keys, the n52te has an 8-way D-pad, a scroll wheel that can be clicked, and a thumb trigger button. That's a total of 27 individual binds, and that's just on one profile.

 

I am hardcore PC gamer, I've been PC gaming since 1991, and how long have you been gaming? Ofcourse I know alot about complex control schemes since one of my favorite games is Falcon 3.0, do you even know about this simulation and the keyboard layout? Yet, even the U.S. military knows that if you're going to advance technology you need to make it user friendly and do away with all the unnecessary complexities.

Also where do you guys come up with this console vs PC divide? Do you guys not know that the very "consolish" games such as DOOM, Quake, etc. all originate from PC and had nice simple controls? But the irony is that the best PC game out right now was develop with the consoles as priority and then brought to the PC scene with all it's simplicity. What game is that you ask. Battlefield Bad Company 2. GWTP...

 

PC gaming since 1991? Didn't you say you were like 20 something? I'm fully aware of simulations, I managed a portion of "The Wargamer" dedicated to combat simulations, invested probably a thousand hours in Falcon 4, not to mention building a home grown cockpit. And if you want to talk about how long we've been gaming, well, chalk up the late 1970's to me. But all of this is irrelevant.

BFBC2 is simplified. It is simplified for consoles, period. Nothing to do with "unnecessary complexities". This isn't the military, this is video gaming. A lot can be missed because of limited controls. After playing Battlefield 2, and then jumping into BC2, as nice as the graphics are, it feels like a video game and not like a battle simulator like BF2 does.

It's one thing if something is simplified to eliminate redundancy or reduce actions to get to the final result. It's another to simplify them to the point that they are not useful.

 

Yup, nuff said. BFBC2 is the reason why all this hype for BF3 because of the simplistic genius it is...

 

can you give me the layout you use as far as which buttons you mapped to the n52te? I'd like to give it a try and start playing BF2.

 

It feels like one too. I was playing it and my god, the hit detection is so bad that I swear that killing ANYTHING feels like a personal achievement. Even Call of Duty has a better hit detection and damage ratios.

This is not good DICE, not good at all. If BF3 is going to end up like BC2, then it is a no-buy for me. Sure it looks pretty, but I feel like it is completely unplayable and you need to really work with the weapons you get to kill something.

BF 2's damage to enemies may be weak, but at least I can aim and get hits every time I fire with the iron sights. BC2, even crouching makes 50% of my bullets miss the enemy with ironsights and aiming at the guy's head...

 

Yeah hit detection is bad. Worse part about it is that it's random. I can play a map one day, and get a 2:1 K/D ratio. Then later that day hop on the same server and get a 1:2 K/D ratio. People run through grenades, survive unleashing an entire clip to the head.

Crouching doesn't help at all either. That's the other thing, there damn well better be prone, and prone and crouching and actually aiming down the sights better improve hits. Not like BC2 where people shoot from the hip all the time and score kills without a problem.

 

I can confirm that the hit detection is a sad thing.
Worst part is the "Medic" only squads running and gunning with machine guns.

I usually go Recon with M14 and show them newbs how its done.
It has a great deal of recoil but as long as you time the shots its okay.
(Still miss the prone button.)

 

I for one enjoyed the humor in BC and BC2, it was different and unique for an fps, that said BF3 looks super serious in the story department. I enjoy the story as corny as it may end up being, and I for one do enjoy better then average graphics, thats pretty much the 1 of 2 reasons people buy it on pc rather than on console.

Now to the shadow discussion, I think simple basic shadows are needed, but I can deal with jaggy outlines, definitely a huge FPS saver, thinking about crysis warhead, just turning down shadows alone gets me playable settings on max, makes me more then happy my single 5870m can do that. Other then for tactical position spotting, shadows can be avoided with proper level design and ambience, if your game is that simple and boring then yes shadows are a must.

 

Well, to anyone who has played BC2 vietnam, haven't you noticed that the hit detection there is amazing? It is like a new game! I think they are on the right route on fixing the hit detection

 

Yeah, I think hit detection is *better* but still has issues from time to time. I also think the graphics are much more fluid.