Is Battlefield 3 better than Battlefield 2?

Just because the graphics on PC is of higher quality doesn't mean it's PC first and not console first.

Rage looks better on PC than console, but ID Software said console was first.

Crysis 2 looks better on PC than consoles, but everyone knows everything was compromised for consoles.

BF3 is no different. Instead of just spouting it looks better on PC why don't you use google and do some research on what technology FB 2.0 features. It's all console technology.

Frostbite 2.0 Features, that DICE marketed most (All console tech).
- Tile based deferred shading: Tile based deferred rendering was developed in 2004 by PowerVR for consoles. Deferred shading and lighting is something that every cross-platform engine is now adapting because it allows consoles to run them, they don't have enough memory or power if it's not deferred.
- MLAA: This was first featured on the PS3, a console technology to make AA easier. Though PS3 version is better than what PCs use currently.
- Quasi-realtime radiosity: Again this was first featured for the PS3.
- Anything is using DirectCompute was made to be ported over for the Cell Processor on the PS3 etc.
- Everything else is fast and approximate so they run well on consoles. Things like the subsurface scattering etc.
- Destruction was developed first on consoles. BC which was console only game featured this before it was ever used for PC.

This is most definitely a console, cross-platform engine first, not PC first.
- It's not coincidence that DICE used all these technologies for FB 2.0, because these technologies have already been proven to run well on consoles.

But the biggest proof that BF3 was not PC first is all the gameplay changes that were made or compromised for consoles. There are a lot of features that some claim are not a big deal, but won't admit those minor things which is why people loved BF2 is because those features were not implemented because it's console first.

 

DICE really just seem to be trolling us here. They claim that the game is "designed for PC first," but only in the way that people who have played previous battlefield games care LEAST about. I never played any battlefield games to stare at lightbeams or fancy reflections; I played it because of immersion due to the deep gameplay. DICE has not given us PC oriented gameplay at all; just look how they have been stripping out features.

I agree that a commander role would be nice, but honestly right now we are just fighting for usable SQAUDS, let alone a commander. It is interesting how they claimed BF3 would be a sequel to BF2 NOT Bad Company 2, then proceeded to essentially copy and paste the subpar squad system of BC2 into BF3.

 

None of those things are bad things. I don't get what your point is?

 

I've played the battlefield series since the Wake Island demo (Skipped Vietnam), and I think that BF3 has some serious potential. The game definitely gave me that feeling that this was something special, and I really love the game, but I also really enjoyed BC2.

I almost cancelled the game after the alpha and beta, but I'm glad I gave DICE a chance, because this game definitely delivers and awesome experience and I know with future patches, performance, game play and bugs will be worked out.

 

The BF3 squad system isn't like BF2 or BC2. It's obviously broken.

As far as graphics technology, I don't know what you expect. From the PC consumer perspective, BF3 delivers best-in-class graphics on the PC. There's nothing like it that has the same scope (64 player huge environments with vehicles). Since when is "better-than-everything-else" not good enough?

Having optional MLAA vs not having the option doesn't bother anyone else.

Look at the article on deferred shading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferred_shading It's at the graphics pipeline level. It's not important to consumers how the graphics pipeline is implemented for the game. We want it to look good and deliver good performance. The engineers chose to use deferred shading because it's benefits outweighed the disadvantages for them. It has no effect on us. We don't get to see how frames are assembled. We only see the final product, the output. That's what shows up on the screen. If that really bothers you, you chose the wrong hobby. You should be a graphics pipeline software developer, not a consumer. The biggest problem with deferred shading is the high memory bandwidth requirements. Consoles do not have high memory bandwidth compared to a higher end PC. It's a compromise for the consoles in that case. That's why it's running at 30fps and quality is cut in other areas on the consoles as well. Have you seen the console game? It caps out at 24 players and doesn't look nearly as good as the PC game.

You're nagging the fact that destruction exists in the game because it showed up on consoles first. Would you prefer they omit destruction so that it's not like the console version?

You're missing the point. It doesn't matter that the game runs well on consoles. Period. I'll say that again. It does not matter that the game runs well on consoles. Having a good PC game is not dependent on having a poor console game (or no console game).

It looks better on the PC. It runs faster on the PC. It runs in higher resolution on the PC. It also supports more players on the PC. There's not really much else you can ask for while still being reasonable.

 

This is somewhat true, it is like the squad system from BC2 on console. The PC version had a decent squad system where you could choose the specific squad not roll the dice with the "Find Squad" button.

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_zW7O6zk61YM/S8rxzeAVjcI/AAAAAAAACgU/TVjcIinaz2A/BFBC2Game20100411130944892.jpg

 

Given unlimited resources, no. But that's a fantasy. Console development of any PC game spells disaster for both parties involved since developer time, resources, and money is not infinite.

Spending any percent of time that is not 0% making a game playable on console that originated from and is supposed to be "dedicated" for the PC platform is a ization. It was clear from day 1 that EA wanted to make a BFBC sequel more than a BF sequel and claiming otherwise was just a shallow attempt (one I never believed for a second) to try to pander to both audiences.

Console gamers get one hell of an experience they won't find on any other console... but one you would have found 10 years ago running on a PC. And us, we're left with the memories of a franchise that could have been but wasn't like everything else EA manages to kill. RIP Battlefield. 1942 - 2142.

 

On the flip side, porting a game to consoles means more expected revenue which means more money invested into the game.

Also, I disagree with your statement that any time more than 0% spent on a console game will lower the quality of the PC version. Look at Crysis (1, not 2) for example. Crytek ported Crysis to consoles 4 years after the original release, no way it could have affected the PC version.

 

To those saying BF2 is really buggy etc. remember that BF2 was almost unplayable on most machines on release... but true, given how big games have become (have to grudgingly thank CoD ) I really expected a bug free release.

One main problem I have is vs BF2 is that the game's shooting mechanics are just way too easy. Bf2 required insane gun control to hit targets at mid to long range, and there were no enhancements you could get to make it easier... however, BF3 in comparison is waaay easier.

But still, its an epic game in its own right, but more bad company 3 rather than bf3.

 

Resource scarcity works both ways. With console sales consistently dwarfing PC sales, they aren't going to be able to hire nearly as many artists, animators, developers, designers, if they restrict the platform to the PC.

 

After spending a few hours playing Battlefield 3, I can say it is a major disappointment. Make no mistakes, this game is above and beyond everything that is bad company 2.

What is the most disappointing was that I had faith in Dice in giving us PC gamer a last chance at having a true PC FPS game, and that Dice initially gave me some hope for the future of PC gaming. That hope quickly vanish within the first few minutes of the game and continue toward the end of the so call 8 hours of gaming I had.

First they said it was 84 players, then they said it would have the most amount of vehicles in any BF2 series (this was from game informer and pc gamer about 4 years ago). Next, they said it would be the best Battlefield game of all time, and now it just a big piles of lied.

Is BF3 a good game? Is it worth the $50 pricetag? Yes Is it better than BC2? Hell yes Beside graphics, how does it compare to the past BF series? It fail horribly.

I have now lost hope in any PC games that is being made for console including skyrim, and can only look forward to PC only game such as Guild Wars 2.

That is my 2 cent.

 

It's a good game. The graphics are great. It's worth the $50 price tag. It's better than the previous game. It's worse than BF2. It fails horribly. It has caused me to lose faith in all AAA cross platform titles.

?

 

But it did... the worse-than-original console port that is Crysis 2; but yes, your point is about ports after the fact... which is still time away from patches and continued support that we as PC gamers cherish and receive little of now that everyone's too busy porting to console. Again, anything more than %0 and everyone suffers.

Gaining revenue (for whatever purpose) by compromising on your primary product produces exactly that: a compromised product.
Ferrari engineers don't port an F1 engine into a minivan because it will create more revenue to make F1 cars. Either you build F1 technology because your creators are driven to innovate and your consumers expect the best, or you build minivans because you're driven by mediocrity and mainstreamism.

Like enthusiasts, it's obvious what PC gamers expect and it's equally obvious more and more of our "engineers" have jumped the innovation ship and caught a ride on the greed lust express, off to go make minivans for the masses.

Which is fine, provided you don't bold-face try to lie and tell your consumers you're still making F1 engines when clearly your product looks runs and drives like a minivan.
It's also not likely going to be the case that EA is shoring up revenue to later increase quality of PC games. So if they're shoring up revenue to invest more into their new BF:BC3 port, that's not something that's going to console BF players... if anything it's just salt in the wound.

 

I guess I meant to say is that it an OK game, but I would not recommend it. I'm debating everyday if it worth the $50 or not. If an updated patch come out hat cater to what PC fans want everywhere, then it worth the $50.

 

An Open Letter to EA Marketing

 

What if your budget increases by double and you spend 5% of your effort on cross platform compatibility?

You aren't being reasonable.

 

What do you mean? That comment doesn't make any sense.

 

In my opinion, the topic question is kind of invalid in a way since Battlefield 3 seems more of a BC game than a BF game. So all the ranting should just end. Wait for BF4 instead.

/thread

 

There, fixed your post.

 

¨Haaha I see what you did there!

Being cynical are we?

Have some faith!!!

 

The "leaked bf3 info" that said 48 players per team was confirmed by DICE to be fake; in other words it was too good to be true.
All you guys are debating whether or not it is worth $50. I paid $60 for it! Honestly I feel that if I can get as much replay value out of it as I did BFBC2 it will be worth it. It isn't as battlefield-ey as previous battlefield games but after they fix bugs and add some more features (which I figure they will probably do) it should be pretty fun. After all I did like COD4 quite a lot, it just did not offer as deep of an experience as BF games.
When BFBC2 came out it was missing a lot of features, but DICE added some in after a while.

 

Ummm, what features were missing in BFBC2? The only things they added or "fixed" were nerfing all the weapons. The biggest thing I recall is addition of the tracer dart and flares for choppers.

 

Yes, it would be good for PC gamers if, for every $50 AAA title we bought, $150 went into development. I agree. We still need the console gamers to buy the game to support the PC game development (how else will we get 3x the development dollars?) but they'll just buy the game and get nothing but the box. (That's how).

You could buy PC only games, but those already exist. They have smaller budgets than cross platform titles. That's just something you have to accept, you aren't able to sell as many copies. If you look at those types of games, the fact is that they aren't better as a group than cross platform titles.

You've got the Total War series. You've got Stalker. You've got a lot of really small budget flash games, and indie games. Mostly MMORPG games, simulators (racing, flight). RTS games.

The only big name recent PC only shooter I can think of is Red Orchestra II. It doesn't have nearly the same scope as BF3. It can't, it doesn't have the same type of budget. It can't have the same type of budget, either. There's no such thing. They can only sell their game to PC users. If all were equal 2/3 of the income is gone from the two consoles. As it turns out, it's more than two thirds. Maybe 75% of the revenue just doesn't exist. But 100% of the effort they had went into the PC game. Guess what people complain about with RO2? Overhype. Not staying true to the original. Bugs.

 

I think the game is great to be honest, I have a short attention span when it comes to games, but this one suckers me in to playing it alot.

 

I love this game in co-op(hard) I failed at stage 4 which rescue hostages , too many runners. & story mode , for 64players game haven't really touched yet.

 

I thought Dice would stay true to form but like all the other PC developers, they have left us high and dry.

In BC2, they nerf the knife where you had to hit 2 to 4 times to kill someone, and this was something that only affected console gamer yet they nerf it for the PC as well. U DICE

Hope no longer dangle on a string.

 

Wait, what? They screwed PC gamers because they nerfed the knife to be equivalent to console versions?

If you're going to complain, at least be reasonable.

 

BF3 feels too much like BC2 in my opinion. Not a good thing. It's so obvious the Frostbite engine was not meant to handle vehicles because they handle absolutely horribly. Map design is also abysmal. NONE of the current maps feel like they could handle 64-players at all. It's ridiculousness.

Honestly, I could write a whole essay on the matter but what for. I'm just disappointed with BF3 as compared to BF2.

 

have you seen how vehicles handle in BF2? I thought all the BF3 vehicles handled pretty amazingly compared to all previous versions of the game.

 

Yeah I'm not sure how someone could think the vehicle handling in BF2 was better.

 

Then you move that 5% back to PC development. If you say 5% is not a lot, then likewise it's not enough to make a good port. If you say 5% is enough, then likewise it's enough to make your primary product that much better on its intended platform.

What if you have a gazillion billion, what if .. what if, what if... "what if" is that EA didn't have a "what if" budget, they had a *finite* budget allocated for respecting the Battlefield franchise and community by implementing a worthy sequel to BF2. Instead they thought it better for their pockets to spend that budget slapping us in the face while they make sure the console/mainstream money is happy.

 

Yeah there is definitely nothing wrong with the ground vehicle handling (air vehicle handling is a little odd), but the maps definitely are not designed for 64 people.
Operation metro 64 player conquest anyone? Clearly DICE wasn't thinking.

 

You missed my point entirely. Reread it if you want.

The point is that for any given game, if you have to decide whether to develop only on the PC or to release for the consoles as well, if you choose to go PC only (this is before you start developing), then your budget can only be 15% of what it would have been had you elected to go cross platform. Why? Console games sell in higher quantities. It's just the way it is.

So, you can either have a small budget for a PC only game, or a large budget for a cross platform game.

Game development is not simple. There are games that are very much so PC only, designed exclusively for use with Windows and a PC. Years later, they get ported to a console. It might even be an entire console generation later than the game was released on the PC. It's not detrimental to the original release. When they get ported to the console, there may be no issues. It's not automatic death for all. Half life, Counter strike, Half life 2, Crysis. These were developed without any consideration for consoles. They ended up on consoles years after release. It doesn't make the original games worse. It is *POSSIBLE* for a game to exist on multiple platforms without being terrible on all platforms.

If you give me 100 million dollars, I can make a better game on all platforms than you can on the PC with 10 million dollars. It's a fact. And, it's based on what actually happens. Cross platform games and PC only games exist. If you were right, and PC only games are unilaterally better, then all you would have to do is look at cross platform game titles and look at PC only game titles, and see the obvious result. That result isn't there, because your assumption is wrong. The end.

I already gave you the example. Look at the ARMA series and the Stalker series, and Red Orchestra. Those are the examples of PC only shooter games. Now look at cross platform series. Call of duty, Battlefield, Crysis, iD (quake, doom), Source (orange box, new counter strike), etc. Are the PC only games unilaterally better?

 

Well when it's six years later it better handle them much better and not the same. I just hate the rubber banding. I get it 90% of times no matter what server. Sometimes infrequent but other times horrible. And others are complaining about it too so it's not my connection. It makes it impossible at times.

Plus hit detection clearly FUBAR. And I thought they'd make it harder to kill someone from 100 yards away spraying bullets from an automatic gun, but no, I still get killed with an M4A1 with just a couple shots while they hide in the bushes over 100 yards (meters, whatever the measurements are). I've also had several occasions where my RPG literally goes straight through vehicles. Not to mention not getting kills for vehicles when I know I'm the one that clearly blew it up because there's nobody else around.

 

A game where you can do just about anything with anyone up to 80+ players and mod/customize just about any aspect of the game versus a game where you shoot in linear maps and pay $15 for every peice of additional content... unilaterally better doesn't begin to describe it.

Now let's pretend for a minute that the infection of CoD-style shallow run-&-gun gameplay isn't directly correlated with the platform and it's audience (we have a good idea that it is though), and let's assume that the platform doesn't necessarily make the resulting product better.Then there's still a piece that you're missing: it's fundamental to software design: the principle that additional resources added to a project does not necessarily make that project better or be completed any faster. In fact it often results in more overhead and a worse project. It's referred to as the "mythical man month" and I'll spare you what wikipedia can do better.

When it comes to building software and specifically a game and it's engine, despite how much money you have, there is always a more limiting resource, in this case it is developer talent and focus. DICE is a finite company with a finite amount of talent, not enough to create 2 engines and 2 separate games in the same amount of time no matter how much money EA throws at them. They were limited to creating 1 product in that time and that 1 product was supposed to have been a worthy Battlefield sequel. Instead they diverted limited resources into maintaining and building for two platforms at the same time, one significantly much more constraining (= taxing on time and effort and over all product capability and quality) than the other.

So no, it's not as simple as more budget = more ability to create ports. You have a limited amount of talent in the industry which means they can only focus on a limited number of projects at any given time despite any amount of money you throw at them. BFBC3 doesn't hide that fact, it represents exactly how DICE decided to divvy up their resources and it plays exactly like half a console game and half as good as the type of gameplay you might have expected from a BF2 sequel 10 years later.

 

you're point rests on the idea of the mythical man month, which you used incorrectly. that's the idea that you can't add resources (manpower) to accelerate a project which is already behind. It's called Brooke's law. It's a fun simplified idea that works in practice, similar to Moore's law in that way, which people are probably more familiar with.

But, again, you butchered this idea, it doesn't even apply in this case. If you're talking about creating 2 separate products, you can literally hire two independent studios to make them. If anything, this example in particular is perfect antithesis of Brooke's law, where you literally could keep adding manpower and keep making additional projects in parallel by hiring different studios to do the work, with 0 overhead, if the projects are separate.

ie. 9 women can't make a baby in one month, but 1 woman can make a baby in 9 months, and 9 women can make 9 babies in 9 months.

In other words, if you're talking about 2 studios making 2 games, that fits just fine. They could do that if they wanted, and still fit within the context of Brooke's law. Brooke's law would be applicable if you were trying to finish a single product faster using studios, especially if one studio is added on late in the process, so they don't have a good communication infrastructure. If you want to release 2 separate products, you can hire separate groups to do them without taking any longer than it would for one group to finish one project. This should have been obvious. Think about it for a second.

As far as running out of the total depth of talent in the entire industry, I think you just flat missed the mark. Maybe if you were looking at 10 billion dollars worth of development you could start running into issues finding people. We're aren't talking about absorbing the entire industry. Obviously there is enough talent to make a handful of AAA games, these are being released constantly. Do you have any idea how many video game studios there are?

Last thought, then I'm done debating this, so feel free to have the last word if you want it. If you really believe in what you're saying, you should restrict yourself to PC only games. Don't play BF3. Don't play any source games. The point is, cross-platform development doesn't mean anything to the end user. You see the experience that they deliver to your platform. That is highly variable across games and has way more to do with who is behind the thing than it does with the platforms it's being released upon. I will continue to try to reserve judgement until after I see a product, and valuate it based on what makes sense to me (fun, playability, performance, graphics, artwork, animation) rather than judge it based on criteria that have no impact on me (graphics pipeline methods used, released platforms). Really, if you're concerned about practicality and avoiding wondering "what if" you should realize that your whole line of thinking is built around "what if". Instead of looking at the product that you're given and trying to see whether or not it is "Good" or "worth it", you're totally hung up on what it could have been if it were something totally different (A PC only game with a smaller budget).

Ask yourself "why?"

 

Take that back!

 

Battlefield 2 is very much alive.
After they released the expansion maps for free with the last patch players actually bother to use them too.

Battlefield.no and the TV2.no servers are up for BF2 also. :3
(Low ping <3 )

 

BF3 is so bugged up. It feels more like a BETA than anything, in fact, I think it's worse than the BETA in terms of bugs. So much BS.

And the Rush maps are horrible, there is too little distance from main spawns to the MCOM so the defending team has ZERO time to setup once they lose a set of MCOM's.

 

Operation Metro rush is just a mortar fest! It is seriously impossible to get to the first Mcoms with all the Mortar Shelling!

 

so are you guys saying bf3 is not worth buying? cause i was thinking of buying it.

btw i just bought a np8150 with the 6990m how well will it handle bf3?

 

It totally depends on what you're looking for. It's not like you hear a friend saying "Wow this movie is so bad don't go watch it" because there's a chance you'll still like it.

You can read my earlier post of what I think of the game and such, but in short: I think it's worth the money IF you have the hardware to enjoy the graphics, which I believe you have. I think you can play on 1920x1080 at least Medium settings which by the way looks awesome and get +40 fps

 

I was just thinking back to Operation Flashpoint: Cold War Crisis. I think it had the best gameplay especially for its time. It had vehicles and helicopters. And every vehicle on the battlefield was drivable. I even though BF2 was a step backwards from it in many respects, although it did bring new ideas. It's disappointing in BF3 that you see abandoned cars and tractors and you can't drive them. How cool would it be to drive one of those huge trucks in Davamand Peak(???). Just pile all your guys in the back and drive through, lol.

 

I have very mixed feelings of BF3. I agree with many here that this shouldn't have been named BF3. It should have been named BC3. Some of the maps are quite frankly horrendous. How? You spawn, get sniped immediately, die. So far, I can honestly say I've had more fun in BC2 than BF3. BF3 is definitely not the spiritual successor to BF2. The game feel is not similar. The fun isn't the same. I'm still trying to give BF3 a chance, but it's really hard since the game is so buggy, I hardly ever get a chance to play on a server (punk buster big time bug). If I could, I would get a refund on the basis of the bugs that prevent me from even getting on or staying on a server for more than a few seconds. Check the BF3 discussion board and see the complaints. I am grateful to have wasted so many hours playing BF2. It was probably the greatest multiplayer FPS ever and will probably stay that way.

After BF2, this franchise have steadily gone downhill. BF2142 multiplayer was even funner than BC2 + BF3 combined. It's quite upsetting. We thought, they'd fix the flaws in BF2142 in later BF/BC games. Instead, they made them worst.