PDA

View Full Version : The Technology Behind BF3



SgtMattBaker
03-01-2011, 05:36 PM
From GameInformer

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2011/03/01/the-technology-behind-battlefield-3.aspx

so if one mod can make magic happen, please post this in the main page so everyone can enjoy it :)

jimykx
03-01-2011, 05:43 PM
+ rep dfor sharing

Spik3d
03-01-2011, 06:03 PM
that the third entry in the series
1. Battlefield 1942
2. Battlefield Vietnam
3. Battlefield 2
4. Battlefield 2142
5. Battlefield 3

wat

jake_
03-01-2011, 06:45 PM
BF naming just confuses me. I'm still not sure why BF2 was 2, and certainly not why BF3 is 3.


Also repost.

thejeran
03-01-2011, 08:22 PM
If this game is as awesome as all of the buenoness and publicity they are pumping into it, I would literally drop 100 bones on this. It's worth that much to my heart.

SgtMattBaker
03-01-2011, 09:04 PM
BF naming just confuses me. I'm still not sure why BF2 was 2, and certainly not why BF3 is 3.


Also repost.

Thing is I looked for a thread with the same name, not a link inside a thread with another name, and when I checked it wasn't featured on the main page, so, honest mistake :).

jake_
03-01-2011, 11:50 PM
Thing is I looked for a thread with the same name, not a link inside a thread with another name, and when I checked it wasn't featured on the main page, so, honest mistake :).

No worries. :wee:

Rambo
03-01-2011, 11:54 PM
Why is all the news coming out on console web sites, I smell huge port again(tho some are still saying BC wasnt haha)

1. Battlefield 1942
2. Battlefield Vietnam<< not sure why they are ignoring this one
3. Battlefield 2
4. Battlefield 2142<< this is a mod and it should be ignored
5.(4) Battlefield 3(my spider senses are saying this will be a bad port for PC)

Spik3d
03-02-2011, 12:17 AM
The retards at gameinformer are probably considering it like this:

1. Battlefield Bad Company
2. Battlefield Bad Company 2
3. Battlefield 3

They oughtta be neutered. :R

Kylee!
03-02-2011, 12:38 AM
Or just BF1942, BF2, then BF3... Seeing as both Vietnam and 2142 came about after each respective game.

jake_
03-02-2011, 12:49 AM
Why is all the news coming out on console web sites, I smell huge port again(tho some are still saying BC wasnt haha)

1. Battlefield 1942
2. Battlefield Vietnam<< not sure why they are ignoring this one
3. Battlefield 2
4. Battlefield 2142<< this is a mod and it should be ignored
5.(4) Battlefield 3(my spider senses are saying this will be a bad port for PC)

By that logic Battlefield Vietnam is just a mod of BF1942 and doesn't merit being it's own game. It is using the exact same engine, after all.

Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it doesn't count.

Rambo
03-02-2011, 03:03 AM
Or just BF1942, BF2, then BF3... Seeing as both Vietnam and 2142 came about after each respective game.

What you say is true and could be the answer as i think i may have read that somewhere now that you have said it Kylee.


Jake yes by that logic its true by definition but ask many and i think you will find they say "Vietnam" was far from a mod though than "2142" was, the results of that might call for a poll or something.

Also since i never owned or played 2142 my view may be biased a bit :wee:.

Rambo
03-02-2011, 03:07 AM
Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it doesn't count.

You know what!, your right im happy to recognise 2142 because it turned out to be popular,sold alot and lasted a long time.

I cant ignore that even if it wasnt my cup of tea:thumbsup:

The_Eliminator
03-02-2011, 05:59 AM
Anybody think that we "the fans" gave DICE the name for BF3? Ever since BF2 people have wanted "BF3" and so i doubt they were ever going to release it and call it something else.

CptainCrunch
03-02-2011, 09:49 AM
Anybody think that we "the fans" gave DICE the name for BF3? Ever since BF2 people have wanted "BF3" and so i doubt they were ever going to release it and call it something else.

Its not impossible, but DICE did call Battlefield 2, Battlefield 2 and not Battlefield 2010 (Or whatever year BF2 was in). DICE pulled away from the date naming scheme, which is too bad as I liked it.

Crunch

jake_
03-02-2011, 01:21 PM
BF2142 sold about 2 million copies, if I recall correctly. Not quite as high as the 2.5 million for BF2, but that's not enough to say the game didn't matter.

Plus, in comparison with much bigger and more popular games 2.5 million is nothing, even in the FPS world. Pretty much every Valve game has out sold DICE's games by a huge margin.

Vreki
03-02-2011, 02:07 PM
BF2142 sold about 2 million copies, if I recall correctly. Not quite as high as the 2.5 million for BF2, but that's not enough to say the game didn't matter.



Are we still discussing this?
VrekiFact(TM): BF2 was just a prototype to see if the engine could perform, BF2142 was the real, finished product.
That is just as valid an argument as the "just a mod" nonsense

Kylee!
03-02-2011, 02:15 PM
I always though BF2142 was a more polished game than BF2, although I like some more of the gameplay elements in BF2.

jake_
03-02-2011, 02:45 PM
Are we still discussing this?
VrekiFact(TM): BF2 was just a prototype to see if the engine could perform, BF2142 was the real, finished product.
That is just as valid an argument as the "just a mod" nonsense

People keep bringing it up... I just feel compelled to defend the game. :p

CptainCrunch
03-02-2011, 02:53 PM
I still think the three are bc1 bc2 and now bf3. It's the only way it could fit and keep it in context.

Crunch

Spik3d
03-02-2011, 02:57 PM
BF2142 sold about 2 million copies, if I recall correctly. Not quite as high as the 2.5 million for BF2, but that's not enough to say the game didn't matter.

Plus, in comparison with much bigger and more popular games 2.5 million is nothing, even in the FPS world. Pretty much every Valve game has out sold DICE's games by a huge margin.

The only battlefields that have been for more than just PC are BC and BC2 and now BF3.

Most of Valve's games were released for more than PC.

jake_
03-02-2011, 05:12 PM
The only battlefields that have been for more than just PC are BC and BC2 and now BF3.

Most of Valve's games were released for more than PC.

Half Life 2 has sold 12 million copies since release in 2004. It was only released for consoles in 2007 with the orange box. You could triple BF2 sales and they still don't even come close. http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2011/0228/technology-gabe-newell-videogames-valve-online-mayhem.html

They don't release sales data for Steam generally and you can mostly only find data on retail sales, which are small compared to Steam sales.

*shrugs*

Obsidian Spire
03-02-2011, 05:54 PM
Half Life 2 has sold 12 million copies since release in 2004. It was only released for consoles in 2007 with the orange box. You could triple BF2 sales and they still don't even come close. http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2011/0228/technology-gabe-newell-videogames-valve-online-mayhem.html

They don't release sales data for Steam generally and you can mostly only find data on retail sales, which are small compared to Steam sales.

*shrugs*

Wrong. Half Life has been released on consoles long before 2007. Half Life 1 was on PS2 and Half Life 2 was on Xbox. Check Wikipedia.

Rambo
03-02-2011, 05:56 PM
Meh anyone can buy a crap game(and im not calling it crap) but just look at the amount of impulse buying on the modern warfare fail.

So to me its not about sales its about whos playing it today and how long is the game lasting, what are the server numbers?.

I also think that wiki site stop counting BF in 2007 as wiki sites are known to be wrong info sometimes.

jake_
03-02-2011, 11:58 PM
Wrong. Half Life has been released on consoles long before 2007. Half Life 1 was on PS2 and Half Life 2 was on Xbox. Check Wikipedia.

Xbox, not PS2, in 2005. I wasn't aware of that. It sill doesn't defeat my argument.


Meh anyone can buy a crap game(and im not calling it crap) but just look at the amount of impulse buying on the modern warfare fail.

So to me its not about sales its about whos playing it today and how long is the game lasting, what are the server numbers?.

I also think that wiki site stop counting BF in 2007 as wiki sites are known to be wrong info sometimes.

So you think BF2 sales went from 2.5 million to over 12 million from 2007 to the present? Unless they did Valve games are much more popular with the PC gaming crowd. TF2 is always in the top 10 played games on Steam (not sure if you know what that is or not), above MW2 and Black Ops. You can check the numbers right now if you want.

Here are the current Steam rankings as of right now.

14,632 Counter-Strike: Source
13,862 Sid Meier's Civilization V
13,385 Team Fortress 2
13,319 Counter-Strike
10,790 RIFT
10,634 Call of Duty Black Ops - Multiplayer
7,984 Left 4 Dead 2
7,062 Dawn of War II - Retribution
5,695 Battlefield: Bad Company 2
5,439 Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 - Multiplayer
4,638 Fallout New Vegas

Kylee!
03-03-2011, 12:08 AM
Gotta love how both of the CS games with are both years older than any game on that list, are still at the top.

Rambo
03-03-2011, 02:44 AM
No i dont think BF sales beat orange box, orange box was a genious plan that other devopers should do.

CptainCrunch
03-03-2011, 10:34 AM
No i dont think BF sales beat orange box, orange box was a genious plan that other devopers should do, except DICE.

Fixed :wee:

Crunch

Lordsethonan
03-05-2011, 06:27 AM
BF naming just confuses me. I'm still not sure why BF2 was 2, and certainly not why BF3 is 3.


Also repost.

There was B1942; this is technically BF1 with its own graphical engine.
BF: Vietnam used a modified and upgraded BF1 engine.

BF2 introduced a completely different engine for the game; hence the 2.

2142 used a modified BF2 engine.

Bad Company uses a completely different engine than the previous games; but it's a spinoff.

BF3 uses an upgraded and modified Frostbite engine; technically it's a new engine altogether; hence the 3.

CptainCrunch
03-05-2011, 09:32 AM
Yeah, but:

1942 = Date = BF1
Vietnam = War = BF2
2 = Number = BF3
2142 = Date = BF4 (Or 3.5 for some of you)
3 = Number = BF5

If we go by engine, it would have to be:

1942 = BF1
Vietnam = BF1.5
2 = BF2
2142 = BF2.5
3 = BF3

I dont know if that would really fit as they were all independent games from each other in very different timelines.

Now how I think it should have been named:

1942 = BF1942
Vietnam = BF1974
2 = BF2002
2142 = BF2142
BF3 - BF2014

But this naming scheme would only be for timeline consistency. DICE wants to make it clear that BF3 is the sequal to BF2. Since they named it BF2 instead of BF2002, the next step is BF3. Even though they made a mini game of 1942 and called it 1943, though I dont think many consider that a direct sequal, since it was all the same maps and things 1942 had.

In the end, they can call it whatever is easiest and I think thats what they did with BF2, messing it all up.

Crunch

The_Eliminator
03-05-2011, 11:16 PM
Or maybe you are all thinking too much into it? :P

Anarchy1
03-05-2011, 11:58 PM
I think Lordsethonan got it right

BF1942 = BF1
BF:V is based on the game engine

BF2 is a brand new engine and therefore feels like a new game. Not to mention, I think it would be very strange for them to call it BF3 when there was never a BF2 that established a sequence of games.
2142 is based off that.

Bad Company was a console spinoff.

BF3 doesn't use a brand new engine, but is supposed to be a direct sequel to BF2, so it is BF3.

5t3v0
03-06-2011, 12:36 AM
1942 = BF1
Vietnam = BF1.5
2 = BF2
2142 = BF2.5
3 = BF3

I dont know if that would really fit as they were all independent games from each other in very different timelines.

Now how I think it should have been named:

1942 = BF1942
Vietnam = BF1974
2 = BF2002
2142 = BF2142
BF3 - BF2014

But this naming scheme would only be for timeline consistency. DICE wants to make it clear that BF3 is the sequal to BF2. Since they named it BF2 instead of BF2002, the next step is BF3. Even though they made a mini game of 1942 and called it 1943, though I dont think many consider that a direct sequal, since it was all the same maps and things 1942 had.

In the end, they can call it whatever is easiest and I think thats what they did with BF2, messing it all up.

Crunch

Actually, thats kinda wrong. Battlefield 2 is more "Battlefield 2007" as one: I think that was the projected time that the F35 and AH1Z were set to be in service (only the AH1Z managed that time...) and two: the fact that the wake island map is called Wake island 2007

But I think its more the second option, by engine. But Vietnam wasnt as played as 1942, as 2142 wasnt as played as much as 2, wasnt it?

Edit: sorry, but I cannot word that last sentence any better. Im too tired.

CptainCrunch
03-06-2011, 10:21 AM
Yeah, thats all correct. and the 2007/2002 doesnt matter, you get the idea. All of a sudden the dates/eras are gone and its BF2, then its back to dates/eras and now its BF3.

DICE does explain though that they named it BF3 because they wanted it to be clear that its the next installment of BF2. So we know why its BF3, just not why it was BF2 and not BF2007.

Crunch

zuiquan1
03-06-2011, 03:50 PM
Maybe they wanted to make it clear that BF2 was the next installment of BF42 :p

CptainCrunch
03-06-2011, 03:55 PM
I guess. What would have been neat though would be:

BF1942
BF1973
BF2004
BF2145
BF2016

But all this matters about as much as the box art, so I wouldnt sweat it either way :D

Crunch

Lordsethonan
03-06-2011, 06:54 PM
Gotta love how both of the CS games with are both years older than any game on that list, are still at the top.

They run better on both old and current hardware. for all the BF2 nostalgia, a lot of people forget how wrong installations off the DVD can go, and patching is not a walk in the park either. It has a celiing on how well it looks too. It's a pain in the rear to get it to run properly in Win7 64. CSS is an old game, that escalates well to current technology. BF2 is just an old game.

This is one of the reasons BC2 feels right; it's almost as if DICE didn't program it sometimes.

Kylee!
03-06-2011, 07:30 PM
Soooo the fact that it has that many players has nothing to do with the gameplay... :P

CptainCrunch
03-06-2011, 09:22 PM
Soooo the fact that it has that many players has nothing to do with the gameplay... :P

No. A lot of factors affect a game and its community besides gameplay. 2142 is a great example of that. People didnt like future games. People didnt like future weapons. People didnt like less than 7 kits. People didnt like the aircraft.

I know people that LOVED CoD:WAW and played the beta and not CS:S the entire time. As soon as the beta was over, they all went back to CS:S. Some said it was because they didnt want to buy it and others because they didnt want to learn another game.

What is the definition of gameplay anyway? When we say it, what does it really mean?

Crunch

Lordsethonan
03-06-2011, 10:18 PM
Soooo the fact that it has that many players has nothing to do with the gameplay... :P

But obviously, if a game can run on the majority of hardware available at more than decent performance, there will be more players with systems capable of running it, thus more players all around.

Why do you think WoW was such a hit? It did nothing to revolutionize the MMO market except being by design faster and easier to achieve things in it; but it also ran on a lot of hardware configurations.
contrast against 90% of the Korean MMOs, all of wich kick WoW in the nuts graphically and have similar gameplay; but require bigger PCs and much more time invested to get anywhere.

We could argue CSS is easier to get into, but harder to consistently do well in, versus Battlefield's mainstream perception that is for "noobs" since you can hop in a tank, airplane or chopper and kill a lot of people, thus removing "skill".

and once again compare and contrasts with CoD since MW launched: you can run CoD at steady 60 fps on 6 year old machines with most of the eye candy turned on, vs BC2 gee why can I run CoD max and this thing struggles.

Granted, I know you are a veteran CSS player and you like the game, but remove the bias goggles a bit; look at it this way: with recent games, when you upgrade your machine, you sometimes barely see any performance improvement; but you'll be overkilling frames per second in CSS with PCs from even 5 years ago; don't underestimate how many people wouldn't upgrade their PCs for one game when they can run their old one perfectly.

There is also the fact that there is not a CS2, but there are newer game sin the BF franchise. How do you know how many current CS players would abandon it for CS2?

And also: CoD has been consistently selling millions upon millions of copies more than any other FPS combined; do those people buy it because of the gameplay? I mean, solely based on gameplay.

Kylee!
03-07-2011, 04:19 PM
No. A lot of factors affect a game and its community besides gameplay. 2142 is a great example of that. People didnt like future games. People didnt like future weapons. People didnt like less than 7 kits. People didnt like the aircraft.

I know people that LOVED CoD:WAW and played the beta and not CS:S the entire time. As soon as the beta was over, they all went back to CS:S. Some said it was because they didnt want to buy it and others because they didnt want to learn another game.

What is the definition of gameplay anyway? When we say it, what does it really mean?

Crunch

Wait, what? CoD:WaW and CS:S have some sort of correlation?

The definition of gameplay in this sense would be the game mechanics, how complicated it is, how much practice it takes to master, the amount of variables included, is strategy an option... things like that, and then what type of game it is, does it focus more on vehicles (BF2) or does it focus more on close quarters infantry combat (CS). I think of games like CS and BF2 as games that are somewhat hard to master and take a lot of hours to be able to distinguish yourself from a normal casual player of each game.

And to Lordsethonan I'm sure hardware compatitbility has something to do with the amount of players, but that doesn't diminish the fact that it still has really good, simple but complex gameplay. I think it just goes to show how even though we keep coming out with all these new games that don't have the quality of older games like CS, that it still has a larger fan base, that, in this case, seems to be larger than any other FPS atm the moment, which I honestly didn't expect.

I mean there's a reason that the CS competitive community lasted so long (as well as BF2, although I'm not as familiar with that), its because the game had serious depth even with the simple concept it presented. Games like BC2 had a competitive community that almost totally died out within a year, which I think goes to show the quality and depth of the game itself, regardless of hardware issues.

Lordsethonan
03-26-2011, 06:32 PM
Ok counterpoint without trying to make one game look better over the other:

One of the reasons CSS didn't appeal to me it's because it's basically the same CS it was originally with arguably prettier graphics.

The gameplay: run and gunning (mostly, I didn't play it in depth since it didn't appeal to me) and deathmatching are dated, old feeling game modes to me.

what initially attracted me to battlefield was the new take on capture the flag: you try to control territory and once you control most of the field the enemy starts taking automatic loses. Compared against this, CSS is dated.

BF has slowly but steadily moving away from "one man army" gameplay and focusing more on squad gameplay, you will very rarely starting from 2142 be able to take on a full squad unless you catch them completely by surprise through better management of resources and tactical gameplay; the paradigm of Battlefield shifted from only controlling flags and getting a lot of kills towards earning points faster by performing supporting actions (spotting, healing, replenishing ammunition, completing objectives) with kills taking a back seat to squad action.

Take away ranks and you woud still be top score faster and more consistently by playing to your kit's strenghts in a squad. CSS is more of a solitary effort: a single good player can turn a battle around and win the match; in BC2? not so much. Because that's not the goal of the game.

But there are other factors too: just like 2142, a lot of people didn't like BC2 because it wasn't an exact replica of BF2 and instead of adapting to a new game, dismissed it as garbage (there is also the fact that at launch, there was no way to have spectators and that BC2 is not league friendly; I think this is still aproblem for leagues)

_X_
03-26-2011, 09:44 PM
U are all mixing apples and oranges. CS and CoD are "point-and-shoot" adventures. There is no bullet drop so they are all based on old Quake-type of MP :) In BF even with most powerful sniper there is (significant) bullet drop. In most cases it is exaggerated but it all plays nicely with paper-rock-scissors philosophy of BF series.

The_Eliminator
03-27-2011, 02:05 AM
The difference with CSS was it could actually be quite a tactical game even in pub servers. It was one of the very few games that promoted teamwork without the need for any communication. This was because it was a simple objective, one team plant the bomb and hold it whilst the other has to eliminate the enemy players and defuse. Although it could be considered a "run and gun" shooter, it was far slower paced than any FPS today and thats what arguably made it so great.

5t3v0
03-27-2011, 02:27 AM
actually, is there even a deathmatch option IN vanillia CS?

Lordsethonan
03-27-2011, 04:15 AM
Like I said, I wouldn't know because it never caught my atention, when it came out it felt like Quake without the rocket launcher; nowadays I can't stand to play it because it feels too old for ME.

But I still argue that it's a mainstay mostly because there is no CS2 of sorts; CSS is a remake mostly with prettier graphics and updated physics but still feels arcadey to me.

you may call me a graphics whore and what not, but I feel Battlefield has been moving forward, over the many games it has dared to try new things, some you may like, some you may not; but you can't deny DICE has tried NEW things; that's not up to debate, the ability to find balance and better gameplay, however, is.

Also I am not implying one game is better than the other; just that they are different and that in my opinion, CS gameplay is stagnated (you could also argue that they haven't been able to "ruin it" because there is no sequel to CSS) or at the very least, frozen in time.

5t3v0
03-27-2011, 04:37 AM
Also, I think CSS was basically a port of CS 1.6 to the source engine. It didnt have some of the things that condition zero added.

Kylee!
03-27-2011, 02:59 PM
CSS definitely isn't a port from 1.6.

Major gameplay differences.

Jonathan_Archer_nx01
03-28-2011, 11:50 AM
CSS definitely isn't a port from 1.6.

Major gameplay differences.
Like what?

jimykx
03-28-2011, 11:55 AM
Cs SUcks, were talking about battlefield here friends and cs if compared to any bf isnt even near its knees

5t3v0
03-28-2011, 06:02 PM
CSS definitely isn't a port from 1.6.

Major gameplay differences.

Wasnt it the removal of some unbalanced game modes such as VIP?

CptainCrunch
03-28-2011, 09:34 PM
Cs SUcks, were talking about battlefield here friends and cs if compared to any bf isnt even near its knees

LOL, Jimy, CS entered the discussion as a general analogy, so its OK :D

Crunch

Kylee!
03-29-2011, 02:01 PM
Like what?

The recoil system is totally different (1.6 is harder to get used to), you can shoot through most walls in 1.6, you're more accurate while moving in Source, there are bigger hitboxes in source (most notably those on the head), and tons of other smaller differences.


Cs SUcks, were talking about battlefield here friends and cs if compared to any bf isnt even near its knees

I consider CS to be on equal planes with Battlefield, but only the earlier BF's with more depth such as BF2 or 1942 (or BF3?), they're just different games. I still consider CS to be the best competitive multi-player shooter because of its simple format but heavy attention to gameplay detail. Sure its usually just a small map with two bombsites, but the capacity for growth of strategy and skill are the highest out of any infantry game ever, thats not even a matter of opinion.


Wasnt it the removal of some unbalanced game modes such as VIP?

Uh, idk, I've never played VIP haha.

5t3v0
03-29-2011, 05:56 PM
I consider CS to be on equal planes with Battlefield, but only the earlier BF's with more depth such as BF2 or 1942 (or BF3?), they're just different games. I still consider CS to be the best competitive multi-player shooter because of its simple format but heavy attention to gameplay detail. Sure its usually just a small map with two bombsites, but the capacity for growth of strategy and skill are the highest out of any infantry game ever, thats not even a matter of opinion.
.
And don't forget, there are no: "DOUBLE KILL! HEADSHOT! +9000001 points!" kill messages on screen for kills.