DICE Claims Frostbite 3 "Truly Takes Advantage" of Next-Gen Machines

[Alex Co]

DICE Claims Frostbite 3 "Truly Takes Advantage" of Next-Gen Machines

DICE executive producer Patrick Bach claims that Battlefield 4 is one of the best looking next-gen games due to Frostbite 3.

DICE's Battlefield 4 might not be the most stable game on next-gen consoles, but it's hard to argue against the notion that it's one of the most visually impressive titles out right now -- a thought not lost on DICE executive producer, Patrick Bach. Speaking to OXM in its latest issue [http://www.oxm.co.uk/68861/frostbite-truly-takes-advantage-of-next-gen-say-developers-itll-never-run-out-per-se/], Bach thinks they have one of the best looking next-gen games in BF4, and states that the shooter's game engine, Frostbite 3, is an "engine that truly takes advantage of the next gen machines."

We're still, I would argue, one of the best looking next gen games - I don't want to say the best-looking next gen game, but we have an engine that truly takes advantage of the next gen machines.

In the same interview, Bach claims that he thinks they made the right move a couple of years ago when they started work on Frostbite 3, and adds, they can see now that the level of next-gen on the engine is "pretty stable."

I think we made the right move a couple of years ago when we actually started, a couple of years before Battlefield 3 was even announced, we said what do we want games to be five years from now?...And we can see now that the level of "next gen", if you want to call it that, on Frostbite is pretty stable.

Seeing as EA will be using Frostbite 3 to power Dragon Age Inquisition, the next Mass Effect and other games it has lined up, let's hope the engine scales well on next-gen hardware and titles using it won't be as bug-riddled as BF4.

Do you agree with Bach's statements or should they improve the engine's stability first before touting how impressive their games look?

Source: OXM [http://www.oxm.co.uk/68861/frostbite-truly-takes-advantage-of-next-gen-say-developers-itll-never-run-out-per-se/]

Permalink

 

[shirin238]

Bugs? Rushed out the door? Who cares.
It looks pretty at least. And with looks pretty we mean graphics are okay I guess.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Frostbite 3 is a good engine. There's no denying that. And I am a bit excited when I think about Mass Effect on that engine.

 

[Baresark]

It's a great looking game engine. I guess the secret is going to be putting creative people on making the games because there was some great looking versions of some truly unextraordinary things in BF4. Imagine that capability in the hands of someone who can create actual interesting things. Yeah... I'm saying the game is not special or good in some not so strait forward ways. But it is a great looking game! Which is all that DICE cares about these days. It's a shame. CryEngine 3 was amazing as well, but it had some very lackluster titles that used it. Don't make that same mistake.

 

[praetor_alpha]

For some reason, I thought that the next Dragon Age and Mass Effect was using Frostbite 2, not 3.

(after Googling) Oh hi, Twitter. [https://twitter.com/AarynFlynn/status/317023662807068672]

 

[mirage202]

So another generation of graphics graphics graphics? Oh wonderful, wake me when they actually try something new.

 

[Irridium]

It is very pretty. And runs surprisingly well on my aging hardware. Still, Battlefield 4 was bugged up the ass. Here's hoping other games on the engine don't share the same fate.

 

[Baldr]

Will Battlefront 3 be using that Engine as well? Hopefully that is not to Buggy and *fingers crossed* actual gameplay footage at E3 this year.

 

[james.sponge]

Frostbite has some amazing lens flare effects, and that sun....... so next-gen

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

So another generation of graphics graphics graphics? Oh wonderful, wake me when they actually try something new.

Nope. Frostbite 3 is good because it does a lot of things well. Huge open levels, lots of destructible environments, lots of things on screen happening at once and it looks pretty. It does everything. And it scales well on the PC.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

Make a functional game before touting how purty it is. Seriously, priorities.

 

[Shadow-Phoenix]

Make a functional game before touting how purty it is. Seriously, priorities.

That and make it bloody affordable, none of that £40-50 for the game and then £40 for the DLC that's not even out bullshit.

Honestly DLC that costs that much is multiplayer only coming from them and the more players dancy from one map pack to the other, the more the first few packs have lose their value really fast.

Battlefield Map DLC these days feels more like a holiday, one week we're on Pack one, the other week everyone's gone to pack 2 and i can't play on pack one because everyones migrated to the next pack, I just wish the packs came in one big pack or at the very least the friggin game.

 

[Something Amyss]

That and make it bloody affordable, none of that £40-50 for the game and then £40 for the DLC that's not even out bullshit.

Honestly DLC that costs that much is multiplayer only coming from them and the more players dancy from one map pack to the other, the more the first few packs have lose their value really fast.

Battlefield Map DLC these days feels more like a holiday, one week we're on Pack one, the other week everyone's gone to pack 2 and i can't play on pack one because everyones migrated to the next pack, I just wish the packs came in one big pack or at the very least the friggin game.

If it's that bad, have you considered not supporting the practice?

 

[Hero in a half shell]

Bugs? Rushed out the door? Who cares.
It looks pretty at least. And with looks pretty we mean graphics are okay I guess.

Hey EA, how are you trying to fix that game that was supposedly a 'AAA' title you released with tonnes of simple bugs and glitches that were identified in the Beta but you ignored calling the testers Objectively Wrong [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/128809-DICE-Battlefield-4-Beta-Testers-Are-Objectively-Wrong-On-Faults] and then eventually admitted that it was broken to an inexcusable degree [http://kotaku.com/ea-wont-work-on-new-battlefield-4-dlc-until-flawed-gam-1476602679] and you wouldn't spend any more time on extra content until it was fixed to a standard worthy of the AAA price tag?

EA: It's so pretty, Isn't it pretty? Look at those graphics! It has ALL the pixels! I think it's pretty, don't you agree?

 

[Shadow-Phoenix]

That and make it bloody affordable, none of that £40-50 for the game and then £40 for the DLC that's not even out bullshit.

Honestly DLC that costs that much is multiplayer only coming from them and the more players dancy from one map pack to the other, the more the first few packs have lose their value really fast.

Battlefield Map DLC these days feels more like a holiday, one week we're on Pack one, the other week everyone's gone to pack 2 and i can't play on pack one because everyones migrated to the next pack, I just wish the packs came in one big pack or at the very least the friggin game.

If it's that bad, have you considered not supporting the practice?

I stopped way back at BC2 which was back in 2010, me having stopped hasn't really done anything to them let alone sent a message.

Getting everyone to suddenly stop isn't an easy feat.

 

[Racecarlock]

Unless you plan on making a game in which cyborg ninjas riding dinosaurs fight against terminators then I don't really give a flying shit about how much boobametric lighting you stuff into your engines.

 

[mirage202]

So another generation of graphics graphics graphics? Oh wonderful, wake me when they actually try something new.

Nope. Frostbite 3 is good because it does a lot of things well. Huge open levels, lots of destructible environments, lots of things on screen happening at once and it looks pretty. It does everything. And it scales well on the PC.

While I'll acknowledge that yes it can do that, Red Faction Guerrilla did that in 2009 with the Geo-Mod 2.0 engine, so I stand by my point of it's still nothing new, just prettier.

 

[TiberiusEsuriens]

I actually believe them when they say that all those other games coming out will look great. The problem here is that the only reason they feel forced to defend Frostbite is that so far the only thing that have to show off with it is BF4, which inspires exactly 3% confidence in the company and its engine. So long as they make their upcoming single player titles TRULY single player, aka offline with no dumb gimmicks, then they'll get some faith back.

I personally think that if EA hadn't been trying to shoehorn reliance on crappy servers into their games some of them would have been much better. I don't think they'll learn, but one can hope, right?