DICE Details Console Compromises in Battlefield 3

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
1
0
DICE Details Console Compromises in Battlefield 3


Battlefield 3 [http://www.amazon.com/Battlefield-3-Limited-Pc/dp/B002I0HJZO/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1311710971&sr=8-3] developer DICE says the cuts to the console versions of the game are the best compromises it could make in order to keep the experience intact.

DICE had two choices when it came time to make Battlefield 3: "dumb down" the PC version to make it identical to the Xbox 360 and PS3 releases, or go all-out with the PC and then work to bring the consoles up to that level. It chose the latter and while that's obviously better for the game by any rational measure, it's also led to some predictable hand-wringing, certainly not discouraged by Activision [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/110819-E3-Kotick-Casts-Doubts-on-Battlefield-3-Console-Cred], about a sub-standard console release. But DICE's Patrick Bach says that while console compromises were necessary, they were made with the sole purpose of keeping the experience intact.

"Everything is a compromise. It's not that we're evil or stupid. We didn't choose not to have more players - we would love to do 64 players on console but then we would have to cut away so much; people would get very upset that it looked worse, played worse and wasn't as fun as the PC version," Bach told CVG [http://www.gamezone.de/news_detail.asp?nid=100508]]. "We would never do that because the fun is always more important."

"The biggest difference between the PC and console version of Battlefield 3 is that we have 64 players on PC and 24 players maximum on console. The rest is more or less the same: we use the same engine, the same technology, the same animation system, the same lighting system," he continued. "Our aim is to give the player the exact same experience and not try to dumb down the console version."

Maps will be smaller as well, although Bach emphasized that the differences will be slight. "When we say they are smaller, it's not that we have cut them in half. But we tried to compact them slightly to keep the action up," he said. "If you compare it to Battlefield: Bad Company 2 [http://www.amazon.com/Battlefield-Bad-Company-2-Pc/dp/B002NIP2SM/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1311712075&sr=8-10], the maps weren't really small on console. We actually had huge maps even for console. We have the same kind of angle on it right now [in Battlefield 3]. We want to create the same experience for PC as for consoles."

Battlefield 3 comes out on October 25 for the PC, Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3.


Permalink
 

JeanLuc761

New member
Sep 22, 2009
1,479
0
0
This is probably the best compromise they could have done for this particular situation. It's unreasonable to expect a game to perform the same on 5-6 year old hardware as it does on more modern technology, but the fact that all they have to do is shrink down the map sizes a bit and optimize the visuals is quite impressive.

The PC version will be the "definitive" version, but it doesn't appear that the consoles are suffering too much, which is nice.
 

mariofan1000

New member
Sep 25, 2009
242
0
0
They did a good job with it. I'm glad, because I have a crap computer and this looks like it'll give Crysis a run for it's money.

Well, probably not, but the point is my computer won't handle it.
 

teebeeohh

New member
Jun 17, 2009
2,896
0
0
sounds good, reducing player numbers is the best way to deal with the limited console hardware.
 

Blazing Steel

New member
Sep 22, 2008
646
0
0
Well I suppose it's a good thing the game will be the same (to a certain extent) on all platforms, but making the maps smaller? That was one of the things I loved was the huge maps, so I could go from close range COD to a nice sniping spree in Battlefield. I hope that what they are saying is true, and it won't change the experience much rather than becoming more COD like. As much as I like COD I don't need another.
 

fix-the-spade

New member
Feb 25, 2008
8,639
0
0
24 players? Eep.

Both BC and BC2 have always felt quite empty to me, even with full games. Maybe that's because I'm used to the utter chaos of the other BF games or was raised on Quake. I'd take BF2: Modern Combat level graphics for bigger maps any day of the week.

I'd take Pre-PS2 graphics if it meant lots of players and big battles going on.
 

Jack and Calumon

Digimon are cool.
Dec 29, 2008
4,190
0
41
To be fair, 24 players playing on a map designed for 64 players would not be fun, with most of it would be spent roaming around hunting for an enemy, so I'm happy they did this. Bravo DICE. That was actually a qualm I had and you addressed it. You're really looking at my £40 now. Just give me one more epic trailer and it's yours. You've proven your competence and surpassed it, so please, give me more reasons to buy it. I am genuinely excited for your game.

Calumon: I'm not! If you have a mode I'm allowed then Jack will let me! >.<
 

theonecookie

New member
Apr 14, 2009
352
0
0
well to be fair if their cuting back the player number to 24 (which is kinda impressive as cod gets a way with 12 in most games) i would of expected the maps to be smaller otherwise the game would become a bit of a snore fest with large parts of the map doing nothing and players only running in to each other on ocassion which would be kinda dull

so yeh over all this dosent sound like an issue

edit: got beat to the punch
 

teh_Canape

New member
May 18, 2010
2,665
0
0
InterAirplay said:
If MAG can have up to 256 players in the same game on a PS3, and Battlefield games sell on the promise of their large-scale multiplayer (something which they helped to INVENT), then I don't see why the developers didn't focus on, I dunno, lowering graphical quality to make room for additional players?

But nah, they're scared of people whining about texture differences.
they kinda have a point

gamers (mostly console gamers apparently, from what I've seen) are too bitchy about graphics
 

Elementlmage

New member
Aug 14, 2009
316
0
0
InterAirplay said:
If MAG can have up to 256 players in the same game on a PS3, and Battlefield games sell on the promise of their large-scale multiplayer (something which they helped to INVENT), then I don't see why the developers didn't focus on, I dunno, lowering graphical quality to make room for additional players?

But nah, they're scared of people whining about texture differences.
Two words: Dedicated Servers

MAG was one of the few console games to use them; it also didn't hurt the it was a first party title when the dev team asked the PSN team to cut them some slack. Unfortunately, for a 3rd party dev, it is almost impossible to make the same request, so the servers have to be run on the players machine or "in the cloud" which greatly reduces the amount of processing power and bandwidth available.
 

Ragsnstitches

New member
Dec 2, 2009
1,871
0
0
InterAirplay said:
If MAG can have up to 256 players in the same game on a PS3, and Battlefield games sell on the promise of their large-scale multiplayer (something which they helped to INVENT), then I don't see why the developers didn't focus on, I dunno, lowering graphical quality to make room for additional players?

But nah, they're scared of people whining about texture differences.
MAG is a PS3 Exclusive. They probably could have given the PS3 version more time and effort and brought it closer to the PC version, but then the Xbox would be singled out.

Rather then splitting their Console fans from the BF BC series, they compromised equally for consoles.

Also, although MAG was rather ugly for a PS3 game it didn't exactly make up for it in any other aspect. Aside from 256 players, it was a mediocre game. (i.e 256 players was the selling point... and it didn't even work that well for me).
 

Serfix

New member
Jun 16, 2010
46
0
0
I don't really care. As long as the fights are intence I'm happy, even with fewer players than on computer.
 

crepesack

New member
May 20, 2008
1,189
0
0
teh_Canape said:
InterAirplay said:
If MAG can have up to 256 players in the same game on a PS3, and Battlefield games sell on the promise of their large-scale multiplayer (something which they helped to INVENT), then I don't see why the developers didn't focus on, I dunno, lowering graphical quality to make room for additional players?

But nah, they're scared of people whining about texture differences.
they kinda have a point

gamers (mostly console gamers apparently, from what I've seen) are too bitchy about graphics

Funny you say that because I know quite a few pc gamers that won't play a game if it's not "pretty". It makes me want to punch them...

Good for DICE...I still find it insulting that they don't say anything about the single player experience...if it comes up short this game isn't for me either.
 

Godhead

Dib dib dib, dob dob dob.
May 25, 2009
1,692
0
0
This alone might make me want to buy it even without steam, also how long have captchas had commercials you have to watch before getting the code?
 

Waaghpowa

Needs more Dakka
Apr 13, 2010
3,073
0
0
teh_Canape said:
InterAirplay said:
If MAG can have up to 256 players in the same game on a PS3, and Battlefield games sell on the promise of their large-scale multiplayer (something which they helped to INVENT), then I don't see why the developers didn't focus on, I dunno, lowering graphical quality to make room for additional players?

But nah, they're scared of people whining about texture differences.
they kinda have a point

gamers (mostly console gamers apparently, from what I've seen) are too bitchy about graphics
What I find hypocritical is that if they wanted graphics, why did you buy a console? It seems to me like an instance of "Wanting your cake and eating it too". Also MAG uses dedicated servers, so the player limit is easily done. On a P2P host basis with a console that has only 512 ram, hosting a game and supporting more than 24 players could be rough.
 

Spoon E11

New member
Oct 27, 2010
310
0
0
Well anyone who had been following this could have worked this out already. Through DRMB (a Battlefield community site) who has interviews and theory crafting sessions with or without the dice team.

But it's to be expected that if its bigged up for PC then it wont be identical on console.
 

Lt. Vinciti

New member
Nov 5, 2009
1,285
0
0
InterAirplay said:
If MAG can have up to 256 players in the same game on a PS3, and Battlefield games sell on the promise of their large-scale multiplayer (something which they helped to INVENT), then I don't see why the developers didn't focus on, I dunno, lowering graphical quality to make room for additional players?

But nah, they're scared of people whining about texture differences.
Textures matter in FPS?

Everything is either brown or sand...or concrete...

I guess seeing the facial hair of the guy you just ZOMGROFLBOOMHEADSHOT is way better then actually having big fights..
 

teh_Canape

New member
May 18, 2010
2,665
0
0
crepesack said:
Funny you say that because I know quite a few pc gamers that won't play a game if it's not "pretty". It makes me want to punch them...
yeah, I know about them too
shit's frustrating