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