StarDestroyer.Net BBS

GuppyShark wrote:That they have the balls to develop a big FPS in the Battlefield tradition without letting themselves be held back by what are now very old consoles is a fantastic improvement to the state of the art.

Losonti Tokash wrote:You know that Allegiance had 100 player games as early as 2000, right?

adam_grif wrote:

Losonti Tokash wrote:You know that Allegiance had 100 player games as early as 2000, right?

Was allegiance a game running on a 6 year old console that attempted to have graphics competing with all of the big boys at the time and render destructible environments? E.A. is trying to get the game to look as good as the Modern Warfare series (the main competitor to BC2, arguably), while providing destructibility, while running on the same hardware.

You can't argue in good faith that console hardware limitations aren't holding them back on this one. The only reason the PC version is getting the huge playercount is because it has so much more power to work with, as a platform, so it can have the graphics, destructibility and huge maps / high playercount all running simultaneously without a problem.

MKSheppard wrote:[
Wait till 2012 or so when XBox 360 II and PS4 come out.

Right now, if you want to do a crossplatform game across PC/XBox360/PS3, you have to basically make sure the basic game remains playable on a system with only 256 MB system / 256 MB VRAM.

That's a pretty big deadweight, particularly if you want to do something that has enough room and space for 100+ players to run around in.

General Zod wrote:
For once you're right, but who cares outside of fatties? If I'm not going to be talking to the other 100+ people on a map I may as well be playing with AI bots.

adam_grif wrote:

General Zod wrote:
For once you're right, but who cares outside of fatties? If I'm not going to be talking to the other 100+ people on a map I may as well be playing with AI bots.

Flow of discussion:

Shep: The consoles aren't powerful enough for the higher playercount > LS: But a game back in 2000 had 100 players > Me: But this series is trying to do many things at once and has to make sacrifices on console hardware.

So correcting someone's misleading argument is a symptom of fatness? I see.

General Zod wrote:Otherwise it just sounds like typical pc gamer dickwaving.

MKSheppard wrote:
Right. Keep telling yourself that you can have everything on 256 to 512 MB of RAM.

General Zod wrote:Otherwise it just sounds like typical pc gamer dickwaving.

adam_grif wrote:Acknowledging that PCs are way more powerful is dickwaving?

adam_grif wrote:

MKSheppard wrote:
Right. Keep telling yourself that you can have everything on 256 to 512 MB of RAM.

The 360 has 512 that functions as system memory and vram, whereas the PS3 has 256 for each, discreetly. So it's more like 256 for both under realistic cirucmstances.

General Zod wrote:Otherwise it just sounds like typical pc gamer dickwaving.

Acknowledging that PCs are way more powerful is dickwaving? I know you guys hate admitting that consoles have weaknesses but come on. I'm shocked nobody has brought up the comfy couch defense yet.

adam_grif wrote:If you can find one instance of me using the phrase "console stockholm snydrome" I'll eat a 512mb stick of pooled memory on Camera. PC Gaming Master Race is a meme, and is used in jest.
Spoiler

Dirty console peasants!

adam_grif wrote:If you can find one instance of me using the phrase "console stockholm snydrome" I'll eat a 512mb stick of pooled memory on Camera.

adam_grif wrote:"console stockholm snydrome"

General Schatten wrote:

adam_grif wrote:If you can find one instance of me using the phrase "console stockholm snydrome" I'll eat a 512mb stick of pooled memory on Camera.

adam_grif wrote:"console stockholm snydrome"

adam_grif wrote:Very funny.

adam_grif wrote:Sure, let me just find a 360 that doesn't work anymore, shouldn't take too long.

* Aiming for 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.

Q: When I think about Battlefield 2, I always come back to the Commander position and the game within the game that arose from having Special Forces objectives. Are those returning in the proper sequel?

A: We could implement it, but the question is "How do you get the threshold lower?" That's not by making it more complicated. Our challenge is to make sure that anyone that just jumps into the game will get it. One of the biggest problems with Commander was that only two people could use it. Some people liked it but most people didn't care. They just cared that someone gave them an order or that their squad could play together having fun on their own more or less. Then the more hardcore people went into the Commander mode and learned how to use that. You could argue it was a great feature, but looking at the numbers you could also say that no one uses it. We tried in Bad Company 2 to give that tot eh players, so you could issue orders to your squad and you could use gadgets like the UAV that only the commander could use earlier - giving the power back to the players so everyone could use it. That made a big difference. More people could enjoy the game. We lowered the threshold for everyone because we gave it to everyone. We now know where the boundaries are for keeping the strategic depth and complexity while lowering the threshold to get in.