DICE at DICE 2009

[Elxx]

Lars Gustavsson, a creative director at DICE, did a talk yesterday at the DICE Summit about how the company rolled the dice with Battlefield 1942 and ended up making it big, and what they're working on now. G4 liveblogged it:

3:32 PM - DICE first shipped Pinball Dreams in 1992. Today, they employ 260 people in Stockholm, Sweden. In 2000, DICE bought Refraction Games, where Lars had worked. Refraction had been working on a FPS called Codename Eagle. It was a 16-player game that included vehicles.

In 2000, before they were purchased by DICE, they had been working on Battlefield 1942. They were met with doubt at E3 and went back to Sweden. In January 2001, EA Partners signed up Battlefield 1942 and they had a publishing agreement. They had too many features in the game, but didn't have enough risk analysis. Depsite all of the features that didn't make it, they managed to ship the game to great success. It was the start of the studio.

He goes on to give an interesting take on the shift in direction we've seen since then, with all these new Battlefield games deviating from the norm.

3:38 PM - DICE's DNA is "innovation over execution" and fulfilling dreams. It's a blessing and a curse. When they shipped Battlefield 1942, everyone was just counting maps and the amount of players. The push was for "back of the box" stats.

Fast forward to 2008, DICE is now a member of the EA family. In 2008, they shipped Battlefield: Bad Company and Mirror's Edge. Now, instead of "back of the box" stats, it's about the experience that the game delivers.

I can't think of any more clever ways to use the word "dice" here, so go ahead and read the full article to get a good view of how our favorite game studio is trying to innovate rather than pumping out the usual "back of the box" oriented Battlefield games. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

[Greasy_Mullet]

Re: DICE at DICE 2009

Innovation and change for the sake of Innovation is not a good thing. That can be part of what drives certain things in a games development but at the heart of it all should ALWAYS be gameplay. Innovation can mean one of two things, improvements to existing things or pure gimmicks.

Going from 1942 to BF2, you guys innovated a lot with the addition of squad systems, commander (While I love the concept, I hate the implementation), dynamic sized maps, etc. For the most part these features improved on the core game while also adding a lot of innovation. But the key here was that the gameplay was always the core, not the innovation gimmicks.

In 2142 we saw a lot more of the gimmicks creep into the game with fewer improvements. There were a lot of features that took away skill from the game such as being able to track players through walls (Most games call that a lame hack, Dice calls it a feature).

So now at this crossroads as Lars calls it, Dice is faced with a choice to put gimmicks at the core of Battlefield or go back to making great games that players can get burried in as they master. The choice to me is obvious, especially when you look at the top games out there right now. If I were Dice, I would shoot for the stars. They have the talent without a doubt, all they need is the right direction. If they do that they could make an epic game which would not only blow the competition away but reap huge long term proffits for Dice. Its a win win but will they choose to go that route?

[theminx]

Re: DICE at DICE 2009

Innovation and change for the sake of Innovation is not a good thing. That can be part of what drives certain things in a games development but at the heart of it all should ALWAYS be gameplay. Innovation can mean one of two things, improvements to existing things or pure gimmicks.

Going from 1942 to BF2, you guys innovated a lot with the addition of squad systems, commander (While I love the concept, I hate the implementation), dynamic sized maps, etc. For the most part these features improved on the core game while also adding a lot of innovation. But the key here was that the gameplay was always the core, not the innovation gimmicks.

In 2142 we saw a lot more of the gimmicks creep into the game with fewer improvements. There were a lot of features that took away skill from the game such as being able to track players through walls (Most games call that a lame hack, Dice calls it a feature).

So now at this crossroads as Lars calls it, Dice is faced with a choice to put gimmicks at the core of Battlefield or go back to making great games that players can get burried in as they master. The choice to me is obvious, especially when you look at the top games out there right now. If I were Dice, I would shoot for the stars. They have the talent without a doubt, all they need is the right direction. If they do that they could make an epic game which would not only blow the competition away but reap huge long term proffits for Dice. Its a win win but will they choose to go that route?

that is why i dont play rainbow six anymore.

my frist fps ever was ravenshield rainbow six, then the game turned into something after that, i was not interested in following along..

it went from a min spec pc game, to a max spec pc game..

weird and odd how many like my self, did not take to the massive changes of rainbow six vegas and the other variances after ravenshield.

[troybob]

Re: DICE at DICE 2009

Innovation and change for the sake of Innovation is not a good thing. That can be part of what drives certain things in a games development but at the heart of it all should ALWAYS be gameplay. Innovation can mean one of two things, improvements to existing things or pure gimmicks.

Going from 1942 to BF2, you guys innovated a lot with the addition of squad systems, commander (While I love the concept, I hate the implementation), dynamic sized maps, etc. For the most part these features improved on the core game while also adding a lot of innovation. But the key here was that the gameplay was always the core, not the innovation gimmicks.

In 2142 we saw a lot more of the gimmicks creep into the game with fewer improvements. There were a lot of features that took away skill from the game such as being able to track players through walls (Most games call that a lame hack, Dice calls it a feature).

So now at this crossroads as Lars calls it, Dice is faced with a choice to put gimmicks at the core of Battlefield or go back to making great games that players can get burried in as they master. The choice to me is obvious, especially when you look at the top games out there right now. If I were Dice, I would shoot for the stars. They have the talent without a doubt, all they need is the right direction. If they do that they could make an epic game which would not only blow the competition away but reap huge long term proffits for Dice. Its a win win but will they choose to go that route?

A very good post. (I also agree with the commander concept being implemented poorly as there is no longer hiding on the battlefield).

Judging from the progression we've seen from BF1942 to BFV to BF2 to BF2142 - I would say there is little hope that we've lost the franchise.

[Dangerdog]

Re: DICE at DICE 2009

What they really mean to say is "How can we release a game like Battlefield 2 where people become addicted to playing and continue the revenue stream beyond the point of sale, without completely pissing off the customer?"

I kind of doubt the in-game ad's they sneaked into BF2142 at the last second brought them much success in this area, next up they wanted to try to micro-transaction the weapons in Bad Company, that didn't go over so hot either. Their latest brain storm is thinking people will buy hats and outfits for their Kiddiefield Heroes game, my prediction - complete failure.

The only thing left is some sort of crazy persistent mmo-hybrid-fps where you pay a monthly fee to play the game, didn't work out so well for Hellgate London.

People want frequent content updates but don't want to pay for it, spoiled by the likes of Epic games and Valve.

[troybob]

Re: DICE at DICE 2009

People want frequent content updates but don't want to pay for it, spoiled by the likes of Epic games and Valve.

or DICE circa 2003 (all the new free maps for BF1942)

the other thing that we want is mod support. Not that there was great mod support for bf1942 - but there wasn't a ranking system to kill the mods.

[Leopardi]

Re: DICE at DICE 2009

"Now, instead of "back of the box" stats, it's about the experience that the game delivers."

I guess that's one way to try to excuse that 24 player console multiplayer will be OK on PC. They're just developing the games on consoles and making the PC version a CRAPPY CONSOLE-TO-PC-PORT with it's console infected multiplayer.

[Deesies]

Re: DICE at DICE 2009

Dice likes to make up "facts"

[David Champion]

Re: DICE at DICE 2009

BF1943 out?!






Some people are not ones of change... either go with the flow or die trying to change it.

I am still looking forward to this game. :yay:

Says the guy with the BF:BC sig :)

[Leopardi]

Re: DICE at DICE 2009

I am still looking forward to this game. :yay:

I can't understand how can anyone be looking forward to utter money-milking crap like this 1943

[imported_Snazzy]

Re: DICE at DICE 2009

Now, instead of "back of the box" stats, it's about the experience that the game delivers.

That sounds stupid to me. Just another weak unnecessary excuse.

Game stats/features factor directly into the experience, especially how long the game remains fun/interesting.

I'll take the game for what it is if it's priced appropriately. What DICE are saying isn't convincing me that the game will be any better then my expectations.

I can't understand how can anyone be looking forward to utter money-milking crap like this 1943

Despite it's disappointing features it looks like it could be fun. At least initially while I blow up everything and play around with the vehicles. Certainly not the long-term fun that 1942 has been.

I generally look forward to the new engine and the disappearance of lock-on weapons.

IMO some of the things 1943 lacks are actually a good thing when compared to vBF2. But I can't say the same compared to 1942.

[RangerXML]

Re: DICE at DICE 2009

I found it funny that Valve ripped on them and DRM at there own event, didn't see that mentioned anywhere :P