VideoGamer.com Battlefield 1943 Interview

[Elxx]

VideoGamer.com interviewed BF1943 producer Patrick Liu today about the new game as well as what's in store for DICE in the future. Here are some interesting excerpts that respond to some of the concerns voiced on the Total Battlefield forums in the past couple of days:

VideoGamer.com: What is in development at DICE right now in terms of Battlefield? What can fans expect to see from the franchise in the next year or so?

PL: I can't say much about that! I can only comment on what we have announced. Battlefield: Heroes is coming. This game. Bad Company 2 was announced. Yes I can confirm that we're working on more games and we're working on several projects.

VideoGamer.com: Battlefield related projects?

PL: Not necessarily. But more games. The thing is, all these games are directed at different segments of the market. Hardcore gamers are into every section of the market. What you have to realise is the hardcore gamers are in most cases a minority. The wider market is much more than the core gamer. Heroes is aiming towards the casual play for free market. Those people are not aware of the other Battlefield titles. They only know this title. Bad Company 2 and 1943 may be closer, actually. If you're a console player, if you know Bad Company you probably know this as well. But still this is at a much lower price point, is download only, and a great entry point for new players.

VideoGamer.com: Some people are disappointed with the number of players you can have online. Do you have any message for them?

PL: Yes! I understand their concerns. It's not 64 players like the original game. I've been following the forums all weekend. I try to convince people that the number of players doesn't make a good game. The number of players doesn't make Battlefield epic. What does matter is a number of systems and design mechanics that contribute to that. One of them being level design. If you cram a hundred people into one small room obviously it will feel very full, but if you put them out into a street a hundred people isn't a lot. It's the same thing here. The level design is custom made for this number of people. The pacing is made for that so it's perfect. Looking back at the original game, not a lot of servers had 64 players. Those that had were usually not full or had very bad performance.

VideoGamer.com: So why do people want it?

PL: It's so easy to look at a number and say, oh this is the number we should have. It's some sort of magic number, 64. Most people aren't game designers so they don't realise what actually makes a game feel epic. Even though you have 64 players on a map, usually you don't see them all at the same time anyway. You see maybe 10 people at the same time. You can still achieve that with 24 players. If you look at professional and clan players, most of the clan matches back then were eight versus eight, or 12 versus 12. At most they were maybe 16 versus 16, but usually they were eight or 12 on each team, which makes 24 players at the end. I really wouldn't worry about the game feeling empty or too slow because there are 24 players. It's designed for 24 players.

You can go and read the full interview over at VideoGamer.com.

[troybob]

Re: VideoGamer.com Battlefield 1943 Interview

we don't need more than 24 players if we make the maps small!

Get real Pat. BF1942 would not have been "epic" if it was 24 players only.

You only see 10 players at a time? Well no poop - thats because an "epic" game has more than one area of conflict. If there is a huge tank battle happening - what do I care if I'm a sniper? I'll go find action elsewhere. If I'm in a jet - what do I care if theres a knife fight going on?

There's some real faulty logic going on at DICE. Does 64 players make a game good? OF COURSE NOT AND THAT'S NOT WHAT WE ARE SAYING.

It sounds more like they are designing the game around a limitation and using it as an excuse than creating an "epic" game.

But hey - its not for hardcore players so I can't really complain about anything except for the shotty logic.

I think DICE is forgetting that hardcore gamers usually get 1 or 2 casual gamers to buy the game. After BF1942 came out - I bought another copy for my guest computer. Then DC came out and I got about 5 more people from work to buy the game.

We all knew this was going to happen when EA bought DICE. They sold out on EA's direction.

Also - I'm not sure if you've played bf1942 Pat, but there were A LOT of full 64 player servers (remember the nvidia servers?). You are just trying to convince yourself that building balance and "systems" around an obvious limitation is acceptable. I don't like being lied to and that is what seems like you are doing.

[Rambo]

Re: VideoGamer.com Battlefield 1943 Interview

If they make maps smaller they will end up like COD or quake and lose all there rep that made them what they are today IMO:salute:

24 players is ok with me but dont make the maps smaller:cry:

the draw distance on 1942 was massive and that made the game cool as well as the amount different combat(vehicles,weapons).they even started to go underwater with sub ideas

[Teuvo]

Re: VideoGamer.com Battlefield 1943 Interview

DICE YOU MAKE ME FEEL SAD.

Ok, if we gamers make you sad at DICE you make us too. Very sad indeed.
First of all I feel sad how you again underestimate gamers ability to know
which makes or which not make Battlefield games unique or epic because we aren't "game designers". I've been playing Battlefield series since Demo_Wake. I've been playing multiple Battlefield titles almost everyday for like 7 years now.

I do know 64 players make game very much more epic game than 24. You must understand it's not about amount of people we see on screen at same time(as you seem to think). Battlefield mentality is not just some small conflict in small room with 10-20 frag hungry people(we can already do that in COD or CS!).

Now see you are removing one very important thing which makes Battlefield so unique. We want that huge map with lots of players doing different things and making a dynamic epic battle, like lots of small conflicts around map which finally can be seen as whole. I like to think it as small ant hill, every player have their own purpose on Battlefield which affects to other players. That's why we gamers praised BF2 when we finally got squads and all that cool teamplay stuff. Now what we see in BF43 is lack of teamplay and people are upset for reason. It encourages us to non-teamplay with various tweaks(unlimited ammo etc.).

This is just one part which we are losing in Battlefield series. I just wanted to point it out. Since major scale teamplay is the most unique awesome thing i've ever experienced only on Battlefield. I hope you don't underestimate gamers. Still we are the people who know games maybe even better than you in some cases. Since many times game designers are blind to their own creations. Self critisism is virtue.

[troybob]

Re: VideoGamer.com Battlefield 1943 Interview

While I agree with you Teuvo, you must be fair to Pat in the fact that this game really isn't designed for us.

I'll give it to DICE for this title - but if I see this crap for the next PC installment - you guys lost about 10 customers because my 5 coworkers, 2 friends, and 2 of my own PC's will not be buying it.

If they think the PC market is shrinking - why would they make a PC game that no one wants? Lets hope they are listening.

[Bluecow003]

Re: VideoGamer.com Battlefield 1943 Interview

we don't need more than 24 players if we make the maps small!

Get real Pat. BF1942 would not have been "epic" if it was 24 players only.

You only see 10 players at a time? Well no poop - thats because an "epic" game has more than one area of conflict. If there is a huge tank battle happening - what do I care if I'm a sniper? I'll go find action elsewhere. If I'm in a jet - what do I care if theres a knife fight going on?

There's some real faulty logic going on at DICE. Does 64 players make a game good? OF COURSE NOT AND THAT'S NOT WHAT WE ARE SAYING.

It sounds more like they are designing the game around a limitation and using it as an excuse than creating an "epic" game.

But hey - its not for hardcore players so I can't really complain about anything except for the shotty logic.

I think DICE is forgetting that hardcore gamers usually get 1 or 2 casual gamers to buy the game. After BF1942 came out - I bought another copy for my guest computer. Then DC came out and I got about 5 more people from work to buy the game.

We all knew this was going to happen when EA bought DICE. They sold out on EA's direction.

Also - I'm not sure if you've played bf1942 Pat, but there were A LOT of full 64 player servers (remember the nvidia servers?). You are just trying to convince yourself that building balance and "systems" around an obvious limitation is acceptable. I don't like being lied to and that is what seems like you are doing.

I completely agree. BF1943 seems like nothing more than COD with vehicles. Like others have said, the thing that makes 64 (or 50 or 80 or whatever large number you want) great is that there are multiple conflicts going on all over the place. They fail to realize that the joy of the game wasn't necessarily killing the most people, it was the team play involved in winning the match which took coordination of a lot of players. With their approach in BF1943, they are essentially forcing us into a single conflict (even adding that option to spawn you at the closest flag to conflict!). The great thing about large number of players (say even 50 or larger) is the number of conflicts that you can get involved in, not simply being in a conflict.

I still don't know why he says that 64 player servers don't fill up. BF2 still has tons of full 64 player servers, and that game is almost 4 years old!! I would know, I help run one of them!

At least Gordon Van Dyke admitted that they made the game catering strictly to console gamers in that video interview. Why can't they just admit they didn't make the game with the franchise PC gamers in mind? Why do they keep trying to spoon feed us these excuses for not making the game support more players? Just flat out say, "we made the game for console players and we don't care if the PC gamers who played the other BF games buy this one."

You know the only reason they are even releasing this on PC is so we wouldn't complain about them not releasing it on PC like with what happened with Bad Company.

[Rambo]

Re: VideoGamer.com Battlefield 1943 Interview

bf4 =java stick figures on ya iphone for $2.99(joke)

I only hope the sell it in cds at the store and not download only,because i format alot

[Bluecow003]

Re: VideoGamer.com Battlefield 1943 Interview

Further more, our clan is fairly large (60+ members). There are a lot of nights where in our server we have 12 or more clan members all playing at the same time. If we got a 1943 server, why would we want half the server full of our members? We all like to play together, so we wouldn't want to rent 2 servers. I mean he talks about scrimmages (clan matches) as a reason to not have more than 24 player server. Well we have a 32 vs. 32 scrimmage in the works right now! We were going to be renting a 1943 server starting day 1, but there is no way our clan will be doing that now. Not with only 24 players allowed.

Either they just don't understand what we PC gamers want (I find that hard to believe if they read forums as much as they say they do) or they just said to themselves, "screw PC gamers for this game."

They have almost a year to get Bad Company 2 out. It might be too late to fix 1943, but they should know what they need to do to get Bad Company 2 right.

[Dangerdog]

Re: VideoGamer.com Battlefield 1943 Interview

They need to get it on Steam, it would probably sell best on there. If they go with Microsoft Live for Windows and you have to use Xbox points to buy it, that would suck.

Having a free trial version is rather nice of them, they should think about adding in a "hard core" mode to the game, maybe it'll be open enough to mod but I'm doubting it will be.

[jesus]

Re: VideoGamer.com Battlefield 1943 Interview

If you cram a hundred people into one small room obviously it will feel very full, but if you put them out into a street a hundred people isn't a lot.

Gustav Halling said the exact same thing lol

Anyway, what I love about BF2's full 64 slot servers is that if I'm defending one base but constantly dying there I can just simply go to another part of the map and fight against different people for a different base. Maybe at the new base I'll dominate and easily take the flag, or maybe not. But I can still fight against different people. With 12on12 you'll be fighting the same people over and over every time and you can't just simply go to another base and fight against different people like in BF2 because either the base will be empty and you can take it, or you'll only be up against 1 or 2 people rather than 1 or 2 full squads like in BF2. My guess is that going to a different part of the map in BF2 would be like going to a different server in BF1943.

And duh of course clans aren't going to scrim 32 versus 32. To organize something like that would take a lot of effort. 64 player limit is mainly for fun, unorganized pub servers not clan servers. I think I've only seen one actual scrim with full teams of 32 clan members on each side and bluecow003 is the second but I'm not into competetive BF2, so that's just my experience.

[Dronetek]

Re: VideoGamer.com Battlefield 1943 Interview

Wow, what condescending arrogance. I'm starting to think DICE has forgotten what made BF great. The number of players and vehicles DOES matter. Seeing tons of players and vehicles working together for a common goal is what makes it epic! This guy doesn't know what hes talking about, period.

[troybob]

Re: VideoGamer.com Battlefield 1943 Interview

look at the graph in bluecows signature. 'nuff said.

i'm drafting an open letter to DICE calmly telling them my fears of a slippery slope this can become. a game for the casual gamers is great - it will make them want to play some of the other titles. however - i want to make sure this isn't the direction DICE will take from now on. Your ability to work on multiple projects stems from the fact that bf1942 and 2 were so popular and made you a lot of money.

I don't think any of us doubt that bf1943 will be fun - but it shouldn't be called battlefield.

its battlefaux

[BIFF EXPLODER]

Re: VideoGamer.com Battlefield 1943 Interview

why dont they simply make it 32 player??

all the maps in that game were originally designed for 32 players anyway.

we had loads of fun in 1942 with 32 players on those maps.

[jesus]

Re: VideoGamer.com Battlefield 1943 Interview

why dont they simply make it 32 player??

all the maps in that game were originally designed for 32 players anyway.

we had loads of fun in 1942 with 32 players on those maps.

They're limited to the capabilities of the consoles.

[BIFF EXPLODER]

Re: VideoGamer.com Battlefield 1943 Interview

well since the game isnt cross platform they could simply make it 32 for pc players if they think 64 is too much for some people's computers