![[MyIS]Tim]( "[MyIS]Tim")
This just in from the BF Blog:
Drawing on the experience from destroying and remaking Battlefield.
Having led the design of runaway hit Battlefield 1943, Patrick Liu just put the finishing touches on the multiplayer portion of Medal of Honor. But Patrick was not sure that he would end up in the gaming industry at all. Lucky for us, he switched the laboratory job of mutating bacteria for developing kickass games here at DICE.
-- In my youth, I didn't really have any ambitions towards the game business, and I actually have a Master of Science Degree in Chemical Engineering. I did write some news pieces for the Swedish gaming site Fragzone, though, and Pinball Dreams was one of my favorite games on the Amiga. But I couldn't imagine back then that I would one day come to work for DICE.
Yet here you are! How come?
-- Well, I found out I was good at leading projects, which I did at Starbreeze for a while. Then DICE offered me a job I couldn't resist -- being responsible for destruction! Specifically in Battlefield: Bad Company, which sounded really interesting and innovative, so that was an easy choice. I am motivated mainly in my work based on what I get to do, so that's why I ended up here. I pretty much want to build what I want to play, and when I started at DICE I also knew that Mirror's Edge was under development, which made me even more curious coming here. <!--more-->
What was working on destruction like?
-- It was good fun. I was deciding what objects were to be destructible, and how. I had to come up with different reasons for destroying stuff in the singleplayer and multiplayer modes. In singleplayer, you can do more bombastic scenes and make up just about any reason for destroying the scenery. In multiplayer, it's mainly a way to remove obstacles, and we built the bases in a certain manner so that some parts of it were meant to be destroyed.
-- It's also about what kinds of things are fun to blow up, and finally about balancing the hardware resources. Having destructible objects puts a lot of strain on our limited memory and rendering budgets, so we can't go crazy just for the heck of it. I especially like what we did with our trees in BC1. They are very physics-laden. For example, there's a big difference how it behaves if you drive over one as opposed to blowing it up. I guess you could say I was obsessed with creating the perfect destructible tree! And I think people liked the feeling of mowing them down in a tank.
And then you moved on to Battlefield 1943, right? How did that project happen?
-- Yes. It felt very fresh, and it was a very spontaneous project that just sort of... happened! We just tried a bunch of stuff out, based on the idea that it would be cool to recreate Battlefield 1942 using our new Frostbite engine we had developed for Bad company. Pretty soon, we noticed that it was a lot of fun and decided to make an Arcade/PSN release of it [It only became one of the best-selling downloadable games on XBLA ever -- Editor's comment]. So that was a lot of fun.
Fact: You can never get too much Wake Island.
What was it like, remaking Battlefield 1942 several years on?
-- Well, it is actually very hard to make a remake of a game that people have such fond memories of, without destroying them. So Battlefield 1943 had to be modern and easy to get into, while preserving the feeling of Battlefield 1942. The development actually gave us some ideas for Medal of Honor -- how we approached the game in terms of accessibility, menu flow, spawn times, instant action, and so on.
Moving on to Medal of Honor, where you are the multiplayer Producer. What does that mean that you do?
-- I am kind of the guy who points out the main direction and sets the high level vision for the whole experience. I don't really plan everyone's schedules or anything, rather I state what we should do, and then the lead designer performs the bulk of that work. I have also been heavily involved as a spokesperson for Medal of Honor [Like when Liu did 70 interviews in two days at our latest press event -- Editor's note]. My role is perhaps above all to bring the best out in my colleagues. To challenge them. So I'm perhaps not the most creative person if you count the number of gampelay ideas I churn out. It's more the kind of thing where I immediately know a good idea when I see it.
What was that high level vision you set out to achieve?
-- I knew we got the offer because of our track record with Battlefield. At the same time, I knew we didn't want to make a Battlefield clone -- that would just not make sense. So what could we do instead?
And what was the answer to that question?
-- Well, if you look at some of our Battlefield 2 players, they play Strike at Karkand, but mod the map to exclude any vehicles. They just want the infantry fights in an urban setting. That's an interesting signal from the players that we wanted to cater for in Medal of Honor. So the second map we built for it was Kabul City Ruins -- an urban environment strictly for Team Deathmatch with infantry.
Why do you think some gamers prefer to turn the vehicles off?
-- I think playing as infantry only is somehow more approachable and tangible. As soon as you include vehicles, it automatically means a higher level of complexity. Battlefield is fantastic in its own right, but there is a certain charm in keeping things simple.
Blurring the line between singleplayer and multiplayer.
How are you keeping it simple?
-- It's a bit more of an old school approach, I would say, with the main focus on the actual shooting. That goes for the level design as well, with the flow of the deathmatch maps. Some games nowadays have a level design that brings Swiss cheese to mind: they are full of holes all over that players can navigate through. Our maps have a more obvious flow, so there is a skill element there -- just like in old school games -- of predicting and anticipating enemy movement. Quake is a good example of this from the past.
You mean like when you played Quake in the 90's, and you knew that everyone would head for the central chamber where the grenade launcher was?
-- Sort of. I mean, we don't have those kinds of "honey pots", as we call them. But take the game mode Objective Control, for example. There you have sectors to capture, so that makes it natural for players to gravitate towards specific areas.
What do you think is the main draw of the Medal of Honor multiplayer?
-- Playing online with regular gamers, I think it is very addictive. It's so easy to play just one more game. It's quick and easy to restart, and it's a pure kind of gameplay. At the same time, I think we still have the depth in there.
Coming from Battlefield: Bad Company 2, some players probably would miss the characteristic teamplay actions?
-- The thing is, we have teamplay actions in Medal of Honor as well, albeit in a slightly different form. So for example, you can gather your skill points into different defensive support actions, like a health upgrade. When in-game, you can instantly give your teammates a health boost with the D-pad, even though you don't physically throw a medkit onto the ground. Or you could choose to spend those points offensively towards a rocket launcher, so there is a tactical choice there, even if it's not that obvious at a quick glance.
The single player mode was created in Los Angeles. What was it like creating the other half from here in Sweden?
-- It was a very special situation, developing one half on a game in another continent, and on another game engine at that. But we decided early on that we would do more or less one game each -- Danger Close defined the tone and theme, but apart from that, we had a lot of creative freedom in terms of level design and game modes.
Say I am only going to play one multiplayer mode and map. Which should I choose?
-- I am very fond of team deathmatch, so Kabul City Ruins is undoubtedly one of my personal favorites. It's fast, it has a lot of vertical gameplay, and there are some opportunities for sniping. The Combat Mission mode is also cool, where we have a storyline and some fiction -- that you are advancing in the map for a reason. Combat Mission-wise, I would opt for Helmand Valley, where the US side needs to get to an enemy fort and mark it for bombing.
A lot of fans probably think game development is a dream job. Is it really?
Yes! You get to entertain people, and it's incredibly creative work. I also think games is the medium to be in if you want to create something that is truly cutting edge.
FOUR FACTS WITH LIU
Age: 31
Lives: Stockholm, Sweden
Secret Skill: Dynamite Sourdough Baker
Top Three Traits: "Open-minded. Patient. Logical."
GAMEOGRAPHY
Battlefield: Bad Company Producer
Battlefield 1943 Producer
Medal of Honor Producer (Multiplayer)
Source...
Drawing on the experience from destroying and remaking Battlefield.
Having led the design of runaway hit Battlefield 1943, Patrick Liu just put the finishing touches on the multiplayer portion of Medal of Honor. But Patrick was not sure that he would end up in the gaming industry at all. Lucky for us, he switched the laboratory job of mutating bacteria for developing kickass games here at DICE.
-- In my youth, I didn't really have any ambitions towards the game business, and I actually have a Master of Science Degree in Chemical Engineering. I did write some news pieces for the Swedish gaming site Fragzone, though, and Pinball Dreams was one of my favorite games on the Amiga. But I couldn't imagine back then that I would one day come to work for DICE.
Yet here you are! How come?
-- Well, I found out I was good at leading projects, which I did at Starbreeze for a while. Then DICE offered me a job I couldn't resist -- being responsible for destruction! Specifically in Battlefield: Bad Company, which sounded really interesting and innovative, so that was an easy choice. I am motivated mainly in my work based on what I get to do, so that's why I ended up here. I pretty much want to build what I want to play, and when I started at DICE I also knew that Mirror's Edge was under development, which made me even more curious coming here. <!--more-->
What was working on destruction like?
-- It was good fun. I was deciding what objects were to be destructible, and how. I had to come up with different reasons for destroying stuff in the singleplayer and multiplayer modes. In singleplayer, you can do more bombastic scenes and make up just about any reason for destroying the scenery. In multiplayer, it's mainly a way to remove obstacles, and we built the bases in a certain manner so that some parts of it were meant to be destroyed.
-- It's also about what kinds of things are fun to blow up, and finally about balancing the hardware resources. Having destructible objects puts a lot of strain on our limited memory and rendering budgets, so we can't go crazy just for the heck of it. I especially like what we did with our trees in BC1. They are very physics-laden. For example, there's a big difference how it behaves if you drive over one as opposed to blowing it up. I guess you could say I was obsessed with creating the perfect destructible tree! And I think people liked the feeling of mowing them down in a tank.
And then you moved on to Battlefield 1943, right? How did that project happen?
-- Yes. It felt very fresh, and it was a very spontaneous project that just sort of... happened! We just tried a bunch of stuff out, based on the idea that it would be cool to recreate Battlefield 1942 using our new Frostbite engine we had developed for Bad company. Pretty soon, we noticed that it was a lot of fun and decided to make an Arcade/PSN release of it [It only became one of the best-selling downloadable games on XBLA ever -- Editor's comment]. So that was a lot of fun.
Fact: You can never get too much Wake Island.
What was it like, remaking Battlefield 1942 several years on?
-- Well, it is actually very hard to make a remake of a game that people have such fond memories of, without destroying them. So Battlefield 1943 had to be modern and easy to get into, while preserving the feeling of Battlefield 1942. The development actually gave us some ideas for Medal of Honor -- how we approached the game in terms of accessibility, menu flow, spawn times, instant action, and so on.
Moving on to Medal of Honor, where you are the multiplayer Producer. What does that mean that you do?
-- I am kind of the guy who points out the main direction and sets the high level vision for the whole experience. I don't really plan everyone's schedules or anything, rather I state what we should do, and then the lead designer performs the bulk of that work. I have also been heavily involved as a spokesperson for Medal of Honor [Like when Liu did 70 interviews in two days at our latest press event -- Editor's note]. My role is perhaps above all to bring the best out in my colleagues. To challenge them. So I'm perhaps not the most creative person if you count the number of gampelay ideas I churn out. It's more the kind of thing where I immediately know a good idea when I see it.
What was that high level vision you set out to achieve?
-- I knew we got the offer because of our track record with Battlefield. At the same time, I knew we didn't want to make a Battlefield clone -- that would just not make sense. So what could we do instead?
And what was the answer to that question?
-- Well, if you look at some of our Battlefield 2 players, they play Strike at Karkand, but mod the map to exclude any vehicles. They just want the infantry fights in an urban setting. That's an interesting signal from the players that we wanted to cater for in Medal of Honor. So the second map we built for it was Kabul City Ruins -- an urban environment strictly for Team Deathmatch with infantry.
Why do you think some gamers prefer to turn the vehicles off?
-- I think playing as infantry only is somehow more approachable and tangible. As soon as you include vehicles, it automatically means a higher level of complexity. Battlefield is fantastic in its own right, but there is a certain charm in keeping things simple.
Blurring the line between singleplayer and multiplayer.
How are you keeping it simple?
-- It's a bit more of an old school approach, I would say, with the main focus on the actual shooting. That goes for the level design as well, with the flow of the deathmatch maps. Some games nowadays have a level design that brings Swiss cheese to mind: they are full of holes all over that players can navigate through. Our maps have a more obvious flow, so there is a skill element there -- just like in old school games -- of predicting and anticipating enemy movement. Quake is a good example of this from the past.
You mean like when you played Quake in the 90's, and you knew that everyone would head for the central chamber where the grenade launcher was?
-- Sort of. I mean, we don't have those kinds of "honey pots", as we call them. But take the game mode Objective Control, for example. There you have sectors to capture, so that makes it natural for players to gravitate towards specific areas.
What do you think is the main draw of the Medal of Honor multiplayer?
-- Playing online with regular gamers, I think it is very addictive. It's so easy to play just one more game. It's quick and easy to restart, and it's a pure kind of gameplay. At the same time, I think we still have the depth in there.
Coming from Battlefield: Bad Company 2, some players probably would miss the characteristic teamplay actions?
-- The thing is, we have teamplay actions in Medal of Honor as well, albeit in a slightly different form. So for example, you can gather your skill points into different defensive support actions, like a health upgrade. When in-game, you can instantly give your teammates a health boost with the D-pad, even though you don't physically throw a medkit onto the ground. Or you could choose to spend those points offensively towards a rocket launcher, so there is a tactical choice there, even if it's not that obvious at a quick glance.
The single player mode was created in Los Angeles. What was it like creating the other half from here in Sweden?
-- It was a very special situation, developing one half on a game in another continent, and on another game engine at that. But we decided early on that we would do more or less one game each -- Danger Close defined the tone and theme, but apart from that, we had a lot of creative freedom in terms of level design and game modes.
Say I am only going to play one multiplayer mode and map. Which should I choose?
-- I am very fond of team deathmatch, so Kabul City Ruins is undoubtedly one of my personal favorites. It's fast, it has a lot of vertical gameplay, and there are some opportunities for sniping. The Combat Mission mode is also cool, where we have a storyline and some fiction -- that you are advancing in the map for a reason. Combat Mission-wise, I would opt for Helmand Valley, where the US side needs to get to an enemy fort and mark it for bombing.
A lot of fans probably think game development is a dream job. Is it really?
Yes! You get to entertain people, and it's incredibly creative work. I also think games is the medium to be in if you want to create something that is truly cutting edge.
FOUR FACTS WITH LIU
Age: 31
Lives: Stockholm, Sweden
Secret Skill: Dynamite Sourdough Baker
Top Three Traits: "Open-minded. Patient. Logical."
GAMEOGRAPHY
Battlefield: Bad Company Producer
Battlefield 1943 Producer
Medal of Honor Producer (Multiplayer)
,bet ive been with Battlefield longer than that nub:p
Comment