The Notebook Review forums were hosted by TechTarget, who shut down them down on January 31, 2022. This static read-only archive was pulled by NBR forum users between January 20 and January 31, 2022, in an effort to make sure that the valuable technical information that had been posted on the forums is preserved. For current discussions, many NBR forum users moved over to NotebookTalk.net after the shutdown.
Notice his reaction when he's asked about FB2. Lie, Fear and surprise ( learned with the almighty Dr. Lightman
). And also a bit of shame.
How in this world would a 11 year old Engine aka quake reach FB2's level, a newly built engine? Makes me laugh so hard...
Anyways, Quake engine will NEVER top FB2's level. To do so, it would be needed to waste millions of $ in it, and it would MUCH more profitable to do a new in-house game engine.
Or they could just re-use the same engine for the 6th game in a row and make money hand over fist regardless of having new graphics or not. It was until Black ops that the engine looked bloated and ugly, they've gotten away with it for a long time, and made tons of money, why bother developing a new engine just yet
I'm still trying to figure out whether FB2.0 is an all new engine built from that ground up or just a huge overhaul of FB1.5. What do you guys think?
Either way it looks amazing although I was kinda hoping for it to be an all new engine built from the ground up to ensure it won't have the same faults BC2 has.
Doesn't matter. I still think the next game from Treyarch will outsell BF3. And if they use the MW2 engine (the upgraded one IW used, not the rubbish Treyarch used), more than good enough to sell another 1 billion in sales, Frostbite 2.0 not required. I doubt BF3 will even touch COD sales.
Treyarch are probably laughing harder than you are at the comments and at DICE. I doubt Treyarch cares, their last game had a revenue of more than ONE BILLION.
Modern Warfare - 13 MILLION copies sold. Best selling game of 2007.
Modern Warfare 2 - March 7, 2010, Bowling announced MW2 had 25 MILLION unique players.
COD BLOPS - Exceeded 20 MILLION copies sold on December 22, 2010.
Whatever Treyarch/Activision does next, I have no doubt will put DICE and FB2 to shame in sales.
I do play BC2 and I don't play any COD games online. But I am a realist and know that as great as BF3 some of you may think it will be. It will still be a console port. DICE's special treatment for PC is terrible hit detection, messed up mouse control etc. And that FB 2.0 while it will have DX11 slapped on it, it's undoubtely made to run on console, then PC. I don't care how much PR DICE does, Treyarch and Activision don't have anything to fear and I doubt PC gamers will be cheering after the first week BF3 is out.
Not trying to spoil the party here, but just being realistic about this. EA and DICE don't care about making the best PC FPS game. It's about trying to take the crown from Activision, this is money and they want to please their share holders. And I have little doubt they will fail, in an avalanche. COD just has too big of a loyal following. MOH fans were angry over DICE implementing so much of COD feel and features, I think BF3 will just take that to another level. COD sales are enormous on the consolse and DICE/EA no doubt has taken notice. So no matter how many times DICE says BF3 will get special treatment for PC, I don't believe them. I think BF3 will be optimized to play as well as possible on the consoles to attempt to get some big budget sales on consoles and in the first week of release, PC gamers will notice the changes and compromises for that.
And this game will have DLCs and I have no doubt some DLCs will be exlusive to consoles only and many of them probably released on console first before PC.
Looks like PS3 to me. And of course the classic slow down/slowmo shot (CALL OF DUTY).
<param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/rs_HlsE6pcM?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rs_HlsE6pcM?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width='640' height="390"></embed></object>
We want to take the battlefield franchise the next step forward with story mode campaign (CALL OF DUTY). We are trying to mix up linear story telling (CALL OF DUTY). I don't think it's coincidence that all of the demos, DICE is really pushing the single player campaign since that's what CALL OF DUTY is known for. Short but great single player campaigns (not my opinion, reviewers and the ONE BILLION in sales disagree with my opinion).
<param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fKbIrTij8AI?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fKbIrTij8AI?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width='640' height="390"></embed></object>
You can hope. But unlike you, DICE/EA care about the pre-18 and console players. They want the pre-18 kids to buy BF3, they want the 25 million copies sold, and want the 1 BILLION in revenue and they want the console fans to eat up BF3 as much as they eat up the COD franchise. 3 games with nearly 60 million copies sold, Activision no doubt is laughing very hard at anyone that has negative comments about their MW2 engine.
@mushishi: If you want to go back and retrace everything as being copies of CoD then lets go back to Battlefield 1942 and Desert Combat mod or perhaps even Battlefield 2 itself which started this whole "modern combat" gaming at a large scale. To me it seems like CoD copied Battlefield in that sense when it first released the Modern Warfare series. As for having single-play or cinematic scenes with "slow down" then we can go as far as to say both games copied Max Payne or any other age old game with a linear story and a cinematic experience.
Yeah... It's the COD series that sold 60 million copies and 3 BILLION dollars using these methods. So regardless if it's BF1942 or Max Payne doens't matter, it's COD that gamers will remember all this for and it's COD that other game developers/publishers are trying to copy.
More news about Console vs PC on BF3: The maps for console and PC look to be the same. Just the players on foot will be limited to certain boundary, but jets etc will still be able to fly around wherever. As for graphics, as I said, DICE is probably spending quite a bit more time to squeeze as much juice from the consoles as possible than on the PC.
By the way, OF COURSE they're going to try to make the console version look as close to the PC version as humanly possible. Why wouldn't they try to push every platform it's on to the limit? :/ The console version is probably go to be heavily upscaled at 1080p, though...
I'll believe it when I see it. For now I don't believe a word of it. EA/DICE know how to spin PR, it's their job. I don't think I'm being overly negative about this, I just look at all the other games that EA has been releasing and I look at BC2, I don't believe a word that BF3 will be a PC to Console port, I still believe the FB 2.0 engine developed mainly for console and that this will still be a console port.
PC can be the lead version, but they have to reach out to consoles to make it 'bro-friendly' in order to compete with CoD. How they'll do this is beyond me, taking a wait and see approach.
By porting technology from console, specifically PS3 to PC that's how. Have you read about FB 2.0? A lot of the features are from PS3 which were used in God of War 3. The lighting system (using the same middleware used on PS3) and the anti-aliasing are from PS3 (MLAA, which AMD supports, but DICE cites PS3 as source for that)... The tile based deferred shading which DICE claims to be a DX11 feature also happens to be a feature that runs on the PS3 SPU and whatever 360 uses.
Those are the big 3 features of FB 2.0 over FB 1.5. And two of the three are Playstation 3 technology. And one of the first to use tile based deferred rendering was actually a console, the dreamcast using the PowerVR chip. TBDR which I think DICE is basing their TBDS on, was developed to keep memory access and performance fast and quick on the PowerVR used by consoles. This technology through various buy outs ended up with 3DFX then with Nvidia who made the RSX chip in the PS3. All of this coincidence? I think not.
If the PS3 is really that powerful, then I'm quitting PC gaming and getting a PS3, since I've never seen a game that looks as good as BF3.
But, again, it's 100% confirmed that the videos are of the PC version. And if the PC isn't the lead, why remove XP compatibility? If it's really about the profit, shutting out XP makes no sense if DX9 can do all of this so easily.
Also, I love how you haven't given a single source.
I assume NBR forum members aren't stupid and are capable of finding the source themselves.
Google is really hard.
The PS3 does not conform to the DX11 API and I don't know this one for sure, but DICE is probably applying the development to the metal method with the PS3. Meaning no overhead performance costs and going straight to hardware, since they only have to develop for one PS3 and this PS3 is going to be around for years to come. Even the new quad core that Sony is releasing, Sony has said is not replacing the PS3 and is not as powerful.
"then I'm quitting PC gaming and getting a PS3" Well duh? That's what MILLIONS of gamers have already done. There are plenty of NBR members who have admitted they spend of their gaming on their PS3 or 360 now, not the PC. And PS3 sales last I heard are still going strong.
Didn't you hear, John Carmack, arguably the GODFATHER OF PC GAMING, has said, the PS3 is the greatest gaming machine ever built.
There is one thing I'm excited about on PC that DICE has hinted at, but refused to confirm. Possibility of mod tools. That would extend the life of BF3, especially for players who may not be MP fanatics.
^^This. They've been doing it by neutering the Battlefield series since the inception of "BC". BF3 won't see a commander- it's too confusing. BF3 won't have >64 players because then "bros" have to walk for too long and it won't fit on consoles. BF3 will be dumbed-down for the lowest common denominator, or as DICE dev's tweeted "lowering the entry threshold". But it will see a single-player even though such a feature is completely backwards and out of spirit for a purely MP franchise.
In short BF3 will be a dumbed-down casual fest, more along the lines of a "BC3" successor and no where near what a true successor to BF2 would look like.
All for the sake of the "bro".
With the success of BF2 and BC2 on the PC over consoles, it could easily earn them significant profits, maybe even moreso, if they coded it independently of the console versions. Sure they could share a lot of models and textures, etc, but for maps and gameplay in general it should be tuned for PC. If EA botches BF3 I will have zero hope for any decent military "simulator" (loose stretch) in the future. Despite its issues, BF2 was done right on a macro scale. Just build on that and we'll be ok.
Love the falling brass from the chopper and the use of destruction on the bridge. The guy fires like he's using a controller, but I guess going fast doesn't help so much when demoing the game.
He needs it for the console players!!! Finding ammo is too hard for the joypads.
The only thing I'm looking for is a beta release for the MP, to see if DICE has managed to fix the hit detection that they JUST recently fixed this past few months on BF2. Yeah... and still exists in BC2.
Im on the fense about the ammo comment, I tend to like a challenge of exhausting my ammo, many games do this still, but sometimes in multiplayer id like to not worry that I've lived too long or pick up a gun that I hate. All too often I run out of ammo, and not because of bad aim or anything like that, but because after killing 5 or 6 players im running low off the 3 magazines im given.
And as for map sizes im on the wall, while I find some level sizes in BC2 to be too long, 3 tiered battles, and MAG on consoles with sprawling battlefields, its nice not to have to mess around looking at the same textures and boringness just to get into one quick gun fight and die. There needs to be a balance in quick action and size. I found for the most part levels BC2 are managable and not too big, just because its a war simulator doesn't mean all battles in real life happen in HUGE vistas, theres needs to be a balance between reality simulator, and fun game arcadic conventions, appealing to everyone isn't easy thats for sure. Think of it this way if games were more real, head shots would be just as effective as a shot to the chest, a shot on the arm would disable you from firing a weapon, and a shot to the leg would have you crawling. Would you really play a game that took you 10 minutes to find a gun fight, get shot in the leg, start crawling around until you died? And of course theres not respawning so your just disconnected from the server.
That's the good thing about humans, they adapt. If it takes you longer to travel and find an enemy in a large environment then the chances are you'll have to learn to work as a team and share a vehicle instead of driving away on your own to either get blown up or desert the vehicle in some ditch. Eitherway a large environment means you'll stay alive longer which is a good thing. If damage system is realistic and you can die fast then that will force players to be more tactically aware and act more cautious instead of running around like an idiot getting killed, because you have the comfort of spawning a few meters away from the proximity of where you were before. Honestly there's no trill in that kind of gameplay which is why games like CoD and BC 2 get boring so fast after the appeal and all the unlocks are gone. After 5 years I'm still playing Battlefield 2 thanks to
Project Reality mod which in opinion has been the only game that has managed to provide a realistic and fun gameplay.
I'm totally okay with huge maps and having to travel to get to firefights.... exactly like BF2! If you get left behind, you're either run/walk/swimming for a good 5 mins (usually alone) or waiting for the vehicles to respawn before you get anywhere near a flag, and that's so awesome! large maps means more options to move around and do things, like "covert" flanking missions as special ops to take out enemy Artillery/UAV/Command Truck or huge dogfights in the air, all while still having localized firefights around the flags and control points. The bigger the better!
On side note, I really do hope they fix voice communications in BF3, it makes a huge difference. It would also be sweet if they could incorporate positional audio like Mumble does, and maybe have a proximity audio option where only the people near you can hear you, i.e within 20 meters.
While I fully intend on building a new desktop rig for this game (and Diablo 3) I really hope the engine is flexible enough to scale down and play well on my laptop sporting only a Nvidia 330m.
Don't count on it. Battlefield games have a history that is notorious for having stiff minimum system specs. A good test will be how well Bad Company 2 runs, and I'd expect it to perform the same or less.
As long as they optimize blasted DirectX 10, I think I'll be fine. If I take off HBAO and I keep AA at x4 or so, I get an average of 50 FPS in BC2 when the rest of the options are maxed out; 1200p. *looks lovingly at my 280m*
I wish I could use a 485m though... So badly XD
But aside from graphics, I'm actually more concerned about gameplay. I've never played BF2, as the only gaming-capable PC I ever owned came to me in 2009, but I've heard stories... Stories of one hell of a game... And now I hear BF3 will resurrect this... *drools*
As long as I don't get any more simultaneous kills every 3 secs like in BC2 and Medal of Honor (why'd I even BUY that???), I'll be really happy.
I think they need to appeal to a specific crowd and "sell out" unfrotunately, games aren't cheap especially when developing a new engine, and to alienate a huge portion of FPS gamers because of long drawn out battles field would be a horrible mistake. I still believe variaty is the spice of life and a little bit of both wouldn't hurt, a little quick action and a little camp wouldn't hurt anyone. And to say that the quick action gameplay isn't as good as the long drawn out gameply is such a crock, to each there own dont spout like its gospel.
I also think people put too much faith in the team work aspect of online games, time and time again I find myself not able to rely on complete strangers, no matter what the game may be, unless your playing with a group of your own friends. Most people dont work as a group rather play for themselves, even when objectives are involved. L4D seems to be the one game that, for the most part, people aren't freindly or care to be a team and just do it their own thing. This is purely based on my 12+ years of online gaming on multiple platforms and games.
This is SOLELY the reason I play Call of Duty multiplayer so much. And, excepting CoDs 4, they all suck ridiculously. World at War is actually my favourite for game mechanics, but Punkbuster, while getting rid of a LOT of hackers, will kick me for my steam overlay. And if I disable it, people still talk to me in steam when they see me start W@W... annoying.
MW2 is hacker filled, laggy and nobody even plays it anymore. Black Ops is ATROCIOUS in just about everything (bugs, no changing killstreaks/classes without leaving a server, 10 sec till next game flat, random lagging-out for no reason, blah blah)... And both MW2 and and BO are SO BLASTED ABUSE-ABLE in their own way.
Yet I play them SIMPLY because I don't have people to play other games with, games like BC2 and L4D 1 & 2... And those games need teamwork. CS: S and TF2 are fun sometimes, but being a strange person in a server where lots know each other by name isn't the best thing still.
I tell you, if you can find or even make good friends to play teamplay-based games online? Epic. They'll be the things you play the most. If you can't? Games where teamwork is natural (e.g. Shattered Horizon) are rare and often not played too often, and games where it's every man for himself (e.g. *lists 90% of all FPS games*) are your best bets.
I think I'm making my point muddled. So I'll compress it:
Games with heavy team-based actions = fantastic for clans with teamspeak/mumble/ventrilo/Steam voice chat/whatever.
Games with no need for communication skills/teamwork = fantastic for people without clans, or friends with similar interests, or whatever else reason it is that makes em play games they need little to no support to own in.
There's PLENTY of need for teamwork-based games on the market, the only obstacle is finding a team.
Trust me, the teamwork in BF2 was remarkable. Proper balance of medics, gunner guys, snipers was crucial. A team that played well together, even if they were mediocre players, would absolutely rofl stomp a non-cohesive team, even if individually they were better.
It made sense to play as a team, in squads, etc as the benefits were just tremendous.
I am speaking of this as a Assault in BF2. I have killer Grenade Launching Skills by very good distance estimation. And I rake up a lot of kills against scattered enemies but faced with a group of coordinated squad I am often unable to wipe all of them out. They would spawn on the Squad Leader and Wipe me out.
I have also participated in Coordinated Squads before. The teamwork is a force multiplier with my Ace Grenade Launching Skills. The medic gets lots of revives points and Support gets resupply points and hand grenade,MG kills. You can feel teamwork in a coordinated squads especially when veterans are in the server. Those who never got to experience this IMO has never really played REAL BF2.
Experiencing good teamwork in games is like eating with your friends, makes the food/game good.
Of course the bad part is if the server is filled with selfish noobs the game sucks.
With teamwork you get to:
-Save Spawn tickets by Reviving Medics
-Flank enemies from alternate routes
-"unlimited" ammo
-Coordinated approach to flag capture
-Enemy spotting
-If commander is good he will take "special care" of excellent squads
That's certainly an issue I have with BC2. I've only found a few servers that did it right.
I think people forget how few vehicles and equipment there are in the army. The British Navy has only ordered two of the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers to be built for ready by 2020. The US has only ordered a few thousand of the new F35 jets for the Army, Marine and Navy. And these jets are supposed to replace the FA/18 Hornet, F16 and the Thunderbolt. But in BC2, there are like 10 tanks, 5 helicopters and 20 snipers. It's so dumb and frustrating. You don't die in BC2 because you suck. You die from random . If there are 20 snipers dropping mortors and 10 tanks that are just destroying everything in site with 5 helicopters just shooting anything on the ground, yeah you're going to die...
I can only imagine in BF3, there will be like 10 jets, 10 helicopters and 10 tanks and 10 snipers for a 20 v 20 match. It will be so dumb, unless there are some decent, intelligent server admins who see how dumb this is.
I am not sure what BC2 you have been playing, but for the most part BC2 has very few tanks compared to previous BF games, especially on rush maps, where the attackers may have 2 tanks if they are lucky. Heavy metal has a few more, but it is a fairly big (albeit linear) map. It isn't out of the ordinary for the US army to have a convoy of 4 tanks at a time; they are organized into units after all. For the most part in BC2 snipers can't kill you if you are moving; if you are out in the open and stationary that is your fault. What annoys me is getting picked off across the map not by a sniper, but by an engineer with a PP2000. A tiny submachine gun like the PP2000 should be completely useless at anything other than close range, yet somehow when fired one shot at a time it can pick people off from across the map.
Just watched 1080p gameplay footage via youtube. This game looks awesome! So much more realistic than COD: MW2. Too bad it won't be released until Fall 2011.
So let me get this straight dice - you guys are spending $100m on adverts, but only $25m on the game production itself? All in an effort to dethrone CoD?
Problems? See this thread at archive.org.
). And also a bit of shame.
