The Technology Behind BF3

[The_Eliminator]

Re: The Technology Behind BF3

Or maybe you are all thinking too much into it? :P

[Anarchy1]

Re: The Technology Behind BF3

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]

Re: The Technology Behind BF3

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]

Re: The Technology Behind BF3

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]

Re: The Technology Behind BF3

Maybe they wanted to make it clear that BF2 was the next installment of BF42

[CptainCrunch]

Re: The Technology Behind BF3

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

Crunch

[Lordsethonan]

Re: The Technology Behind BF3

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!]

Re: The Technology Behind BF3

Soooo the fact that it has that many players has nothing to do with the gameplay... :P

[CptainCrunch]

Re: The Technology Behind BF3

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]

Re: The Technology Behind BF3

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!]

Re: The Technology Behind BF3

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]

Re: The Technology Behind BF3

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_]

Re: The Technology Behind BF3

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]

Re: The Technology Behind BF3

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]

Re: The Technology Behind BF3

actually, is there even a deathmatch option IN vanillia CS?