Battleblog #6: Building Battlefield 3 from the gun out

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • CptainCrunch
    I am the 1%
    • Oct 2007
    • 12976

    #1

    Battleblog #6: Building Battlefield 3 from the gun out

    From the Battlefield Blog:


    Every Battlefield game is built from the gun out. If persistence is what keeps you coming back for more, the gunplay is the essential foundation that the entire game hinges on. Read on for Senior Designer Alan Kertz’ thoughts on what makes shooting in Battlefield 3 unique.

    Tweaking, testing, and re-tweaking the weapons in Battlefield 3 is the short description of a normal workday for Senior Designer Alan Kertz at this stage in the production. Now that we are well into August, Alan’s work has long since gone from overarching shooter vision to detailed fine-tuning. Walk down to his desk at any given day and you are likely to find him poring over notes or some onscreen graphs, deep in discussion with his designer colleagues:

    Is the exit smoke from this RPG large enough? Is the precision increase when adding a heavy barrel to this rifle noticeable enough in semi-burst fire mode? How does the addition of a foregrip to this rifle affect the stability when firing in fully automatic mode?

    -- Authenticity is really important when you’re doing a modern day game like Battlefield 3. We know our players look critically at the guns in our games, so we brought in experts like Andy McNab. Our military advisors not only help us get it right, they help us understand why it’s right.”

    Compared to both Battlefield 2 and Battlefield: Bad Company 2, there is a larger focus in Battlefield 3 on authenticity and real life handling. This comes down to details like reloads, mobility, bullet trajectories, and even how the caliber and barrel length of a gun determines muzzle velocity and energy. For Alan, this approach clearly leads to better gameplay.

    -- With authenticity as a base, you get a natural balance because all real life guns are based on trade-offs. It really pulls out the personality of each weapon system to use the authentic stats and features. Each army selects a different weapon, for a different reason, and we pass those selections on to our players.”

    Varied weapons for all play styles
    The arsenals of U.S. Marine Corps and the Russian Army are both featured prominently in the game, since those are the sides you play in both single and multiplayer. Building from that base, we selected a number of additional weapons that are returning classics, competing designs, and alternate combat roles. Each weapon choice means it gives the player an additional tactical choice: Get in close with a carbine, PDW, or shotgun. Hit from long range with a sniper rifle. Engage tanks with an RPG. Or lay down suppressive fire with a light machinegun.

    We’re not just giving you weapon A or B, take it or leave it, though. Each main weapon will be heavily customizable to suit different roles. The majority of weapons in Battlefield 3 can be tailored by the player to fit anything from close quarter to long range combat, or something in between. But we’ll save that for a later Battleblog post, when we will go deep into weapons customization.


    It has been mentioned before about how or if DICE will put realism into the mechanics of the weapons. I think this answers the questions. Hopefully once Battlefield 3 is complete it will satisfy the realists in us all. What do you think about weapon realism? Do you think making weapons this adjustable in an FPS game brings more to the table or will everyone find that one overpowered weapon and be done with it?

    Source
    Twitter: @CptainCrunch
    Battlelog/Origin: CptainCrunch
  • CptainCrunch
    I am the 1%
    • Oct 2007
    • 12976

    #2
    Re: Battleblog #6: Building Battlefield 3 from the gun out

    I guess I will be the first to post about this as this blog bugs me the most.

    Im not a realistic kinda player. I dont care how realistic a weapon is or should be as I know its a game, but when a blog talks about these types of details and yet we know some of the weapons are not realistic, thats a problem.

    A prime example is the M16 debate. They have the look and feel and all the parts right, but they make it full auto. Many know its not. Its not a game breaker for me, but if you are going to talk about how realistic you want everything to be, something like the M16 shouldnt be overlooked. Why get all these people worked up for something trivial as that. The reasoning is sound, but saying you are going for realism too just makes it seem like the opposite.

    You might think, "Whats the big deal, its only one gun?" Well, the big deal is, again, saying how realistic you are making it, but you are not. The other big deal is if so many want the M16 to be burst fire only, then replace it as the default gun with something that is auto and make the M16 an unlock. I think thats an easy way to make everyone happy.

    The other issue is that its still all a game. Im glad they are working toward smoke and sounds to make things as real as possible, but in the end, Im going to enjoy the game for what
    it is.

    Also, Demize did mention in a tweet M16A3, which is a fully auto variant of the M16.

    Crunch
    Twitter: @CptainCrunch
    Battlelog/Origin: CptainCrunch

    Comment

    • Anarchy1
      Member
      • Aug 2010
      • 1546

      #3
      Re: Battleblog #6: Building Battlefield 3 from the gun out

      I agree. They all trying to stress how much they are paying attention to details (like Demize talking about how the bullet casings are different colors for both sides), yet they then go and completely screw around with other details like the M16. I'm not a gun nerd, and I usually don't care if guns are slightly off (so what if the real HK416 has a longer barrel than the one in BC2!), but changing the M16A4 to full-auto is completely different. The M16 is an iconic gun and is a standard gun in almost every game. It's almost always a base gun. Everyone who has ever played a shooter knows that the M16A4 is not full-auto. At least he decided to change it to the M16A3. I still think he should have just kept the A4 with burst fire and leave it like that.
      Battlelog/Origin ID - Hurricane043

      Comment

      • Minmaster
        I DON'T PLAY CS!
        • Nov 2006
        • 4112

        #4
        Re: Battleblog #6: Building Battlefield 3 from the gun out

        the m16 in vietnam was full auto, so is that wrong too?

        Comment

        • imported_raidenandsolid
          get rid of "imported_"
          • Mar 2007
          • 47

          #5
          Yea... the M16 originally was a full auto weapon back in vietnam.. and I can sure as I am alive breathing can guarantee you that people have modified and variants of the M16 have been made to this day to be a full auto firing weapon. Please don't become whiners over such a minute... and when I say minute i mean completely insignificant that the M16 was full auto. It's not a game breaker and does not give any player noob or expert any advantage over someone else. These people should in fact work harder as they are suggesting they are trying to do with attention to details with the weapons.

          Comment

          • Anarchy1
            Member
            • Aug 2010
            • 1546

            #6
            Re: Battleblog #6: Building Battlefield 3 from the gun out

            I don't know, making a burst fire gun a full-auto gun is not a minute change in my opinion. That completely changes the dynamic of fighting with the gun.

            And the gun in Vietnam was the M16A1, which was full-auto. They are actually going back to a full-auto variation M16 soon.
            Battlelog/Origin ID - Hurricane043

            Comment

            • jimykx
              No, I AM your father!
              • Jan 2010
              • 6640

              #7
              I also do not really care about realism, since my actual knowledge in weapons is very little, and all i can do is name them by looking at it's shape although i know very little characteristics about them. Still i think that if they make all weapons with an auto firing mode, and there are no burst-fire only weapons it kind of sounds that most weapons(rifles) will be/feel the same and it wont really make much of a difference if you are using an m16 or an ak47

              Comment

              • troybob
                Member
                • Sep 2007
                • 2823

                #8
                I don't care much about the m-16 full auto debate. M-16's are capable of full auto. AN AK-47 IS NOT CAPABLE OF FIRING WITH THE SAFETY ON!!!!!

                Comment

                • eradicator8
                  Member
                  • Dec 2006
                  • 227

                  #9
                  I don´t really care about that kind of detailed realism. If we went down that road don´t we have to include magazine change and switch to knife debate as well?If they found it necesarry to change it due to balance issues then fine, it is still only a game (sorry, but it is).

                  Comment

                  • troybob
                    Member
                    • Sep 2007
                    • 2823

                    #10
                    Re: Battleblog #6: Building Battlefield 3 from the gun out

                    Originally posted by eradicator8
                    I don´t really care about that kind of detailed realism. If we went down that road don´t we have to include magazine change and switch to knife debate as well?If they found it necesarry to change it due to balance issues then fine, it is still only a game (sorry, but it is).
                    Um. I don't know about you but if I'm going to shell out 60 bucks for media, I'm going to demand a bit more than you would.
                    .
                    Maybe I'm just not the complacent type to forgive a bunch of serious real-world flaws. For me, watching a team-mate empty a magazine from an AK-47 with the safety engaged takes me out of the moment a bit.
                    .
                    Would you want to watch a movie that allowed the camera to reflect in mirrors? No? Well why not? It's only a movie.
                    .
                    It's not "whining" to expect high quality. Sorry, but it's not.
                    .
                    That's not to say that little things can't be forgiven, but if issues arise and the developer ignores them, it doesn't bode well for the confidence in such developers.
                    .
                    That being said, what's so unrealistic about magazine change and "switch to knife" debates? I'm not familiar with such debates. I suppose it could be argued that video games take too long to reload. But any well trained combat soldier can drop his rifle (which is on a tactical sling for such scenarios) and pull out his knife in one instinct-like motion.

                    Comment

                    • eradicator8
                      Member
                      • Dec 2006
                      • 227

                      #11
                      Re: Battleblog #6: Building Battlefield 3 from the gun out

                      Originally posted by troybob
                      Um. I don't know about you but if I'm going to shell out 60 bucks for media, I'm going to demand a bit more than you would.
                      .
                      Maybe I'm just not the complacent type to forgive a bunch of serious real-world flaws. For me, watching a team-mate empty a magazine from an AK-47 with the safety engaged takes me out of the moment a bit.
                      .
                      Would you want to watch a movie that allowed the camera to reflect in mirrors? No? Well why not? It's only a movie.
                      .
                      It's not "whining" to expect high quality. Sorry, but it's not.
                      .
                      That's not to say that little things can't be forgiven, but if issues arise and the developer ignores them, it doesn't bode well for the confidence in such developers.
                      .
                      That being said, what's so unrealistic about magazine change and "switch to knife" debates? I'm not familiar with such debates. I suppose it could be argued that video games take too long to reload. But any well trained combat soldier can drop his rifle (which is on a tactical sling for such scenarios) and pull out his knife in one instinct-like motion.
                      So basically one should be willing to to accept a completely unbalanced game for the sake of realism. If that was the case wouldn´t BF2 have been the most unbalanced game ever. The two sides were US/UN and the insergents. The later is only using guerilla stile tactics with suicidebombs relying on their ability to blend in with the civilians and striking when you least expect it. They would never sit in a helicopter nor a jet. That would be some fun game, right??

                      Why on earth is there even a safety on the guns in BF??? To avoid shooting one another??? Who cares!!!
                      Comparing video games to movies is not the best move. Try visiting www.moviemistakes.com. If these movies were videogames they would never have been released.

                      I seriously doubt that the G3, the M60 or the M24 is on a tactical sling for quick stabbing. So only soldiers with SMG´s and the like should be able to use the knife?

                      It has been said so many times before in these forums; If you want realism BF is not for you, then you have to go ARMA.

                      Finally BF3 is based on the US/Russia conflict - aren´t they on the same side?!?!
                      Allow the developers some freedom in designing a game and balancing it for the sake of being fun for all.

                      Peace out!

                      Comment

                      • Anarchy1
                        Member
                        • Aug 2010
                        • 1546

                        #12
                        Re: Battleblog #6: Building Battlefield 3 from the gun out

                        The thing is that the M16 doesn't need to be balanced. It is fine as a burst fire weapon against the Russian full-auto assault rifle.

                        At this rate, we might as well make the M24 semi-auto so it can compete with the SVD.
                        Battlelog/Origin ID - Hurricane043

                        Comment

                        • eradicator8
                          Member
                          • Dec 2006
                          • 227

                          #13
                          I seriously think these balance issues have been discussed thoroughly before being implemented by the dev team. Do we actually know that all veapons from BC2 will be available in BF3 or are we merely speculating, relying on trailers to give us the needed information. And are we in possesion of the characteristics of all the guns enabling us to cry "foul".Allow them to apply full auto to the M16 and if they find it overpowered they will tweak it as they will always do in the name of balance vs. fun.

                          Comment

                          • troybob
                            Member
                            • Sep 2007
                            • 2823

                            #14
                            Re: Battleblog #6: Building Battlefield 3 from the gun out

                            Originally posted by eradicator8
                            So basically one should be willing to to accept a completely unbalanced game for the sake of realism. If that was the case wouldn´t BF2 have been the most unbalanced game ever. The two sides were US/UN and the insergents. The later is only using guerilla stile tactics with suicidebombs relying on their ability to blend in with the civilians and striking when you least expect it. They would never sit in a helicopter nor a jet. That would be some fun game, right??

                            Why on earth is there even a safety on the guns in BF??? To avoid shooting one another??? Who cares!!!
                            Comparing video games to movies is not the best move. Try visiting www.moviemistakes.com. If these movies were videogames they would never have been released.

                            I seriously doubt that the G3, the M60 or the M24 is on a tactical sling for quick stabbing. So only soldiers with SMG´s and the like should be able to use the knife?

                            It has been said so many times before in these forums; If you want realism BF is not for you, then you have to go ARMA.

                            Finally BF3 is based on the US/Russia conflict - aren´t they on the same side?!?!
                            Allow the developers some freedom in designing a game and balancing it for the sake of being fun for all.

                            Peace out!
                            OK I think we're talking about 2 different things.
                            .
                            I'm talking about cosmetic realism, things that cannot affect balance (though the most realistic yet balanced gameplay should still be demanded).
                            .
                            I don't want to shoot imaginary guns that never existed. If I wanted that I'd play Unreal or BF2142. Why are there safeties on the guns? Because they are modeled after real guns. Simple. But tell me, does changing the skin of a gun to show the safety disegnaged affect balance in any way?
                            .
                            Now onto the movies. Like I said in my first post, there's always going to be some mistake un-noticed. But if you show a screenshot of a game and there is a glaring mistake that is easy to fix and no one does anything about it, it's called "bad customer service". IE - they are not listening.
                            .
                            Now lets talk about BF2. It's hard to be realistic about an imaginary war. Again I'm talking about cosmetic realism, not really "theater of war" realism. Oh and by the way, BF2 was US versus the middle east coalition. There are many arab countries with strong and advanced armies. Sorry dude, pick up a book.
                            .
                            Again, I don't know why you are getting on my case about the slings. I'm saying that knifing is possible. And m249 doesn't have a sling? Really? And the m24? You're supposed to carry the dam gun even while you are stalking? That's wonderful!
                            .
                            And the US and Russia are on the same side? Really? I mean.....really?
                            .
                            Like I said, it's not unusual to demand a bit of quality in what you buy. I can forgive fabricating a war or weapon ballistics for balance issues, but why can't they just skin the dam AK-47 for the safety to be on.
                            .
                            It wouldn't be a big deal if DICE wasn't like "Look how much research we did about these guns" and not even realize the dam safety is on.
                            .
                            Sorry to sound like a jerk - it's nothing personal. Mostly.

                            Comment

                            Working...