AUG 29TH - PAX 2011 RECAP PART 1
A few weeks ago, I got an email from Seeson, a EA Community Manager at EA Redwood shores about PAX and a Battlefield 3 Community event. How Could I resist the offer? Last thursday the plane departed from Montreal to Seattle. Mid flight, my Iphone crashed with most of my details on hotel and directions. Through perseverance I managed to find my way to the hotel and check in. With limited wifi accessed I managed to get a hold of Jay from Pixel Enemy and we had a awesome meal before meeting up with Chris aka Redd_dragons from Pixel Enemy. Overall the weekend was an absolutely amazing time, not only did we play some BF3 but spent the time in a new city with friends from DICE, EA and the Community was a huge reminder that this video game is going to rock. While I put together a full article of the 4 days at PAX, here is a short overview of what was shown to the public at PAX this year
At PAX there were a total of 2 Battlefield 3 areas setup. The Main BF3 Booth had Playstation 3 stations with Coop mode and then upstairs, 24 Nvidia PCs rocking 2x580s with Operation Metro TDM. I mainly spent my time at the show at the Nvidia setup. Unlike previous show builds, this had All unlocks available which allowed me to play with things such as the EOD Bot, MAV and various attachments. You are all going to be blown away by the amount of customization in this game. Not only do you get tons of options per weapon, but there many different variants for pistols and attachments. When DICE say that this game will take include tons of options, they really mean it. Another note is that the graphics were mind blowing. It seemed as though the textures were even higher res then most videos weve seen. Even little particle effects all over the place. It made the fault line trailers look like a early version compared to what its like now.
From the fact sheets at Gamescom, we learned about the EOD Bot, Radio Beacon, Micro UAV, Radar Beacon and Smoke Grenades. All of these could be destroyed by the enemy. When you exited the Camera view for the EOD Bot/ UAV, it seemed like they stayed there stationary, so you could use it again later.
EOD Bot
- Can be placed on the ground
- Player switches to camera view on EOD Bot
- Capable of Arming/Defusing MCOMS
- Can repair vehicles or torch players/vehicles
Radio Beacon
- Acts as a spawn point
- Model looks like a little radio
- Can be placed anywhere
Micro UAV
- Is thrown onto the ground
- Play switches to UAV Camera
- can push the EOD Bot around
- Used for spotting enemies
- No Weapons but to be added?
Radar Beacon
- Can be placed on the ground
- Scans area for enemies
- Only available to Recon Class
Smoke Grenades
- Could be used to cover a choke point entirely
- Should be used to hide a wave of EOD Bots attacking.
More details to come soon!
I actually cancelled my preorder. I bought MoH so I'll get access to the beta, but I want that coupon and my bday is a few days before the release. Hopefully it'll sync up or there will be a better deal by that time. If retail price is the best I can do I'll just get it from Amazon. I dont like the 5 install limit on Origin. I played BF2 will 3 years, and a lot can happen in 3 years PC wise.
I have a feeling I'm going to need to upgrade my 5850 as well, but I don't see any reason not to pre-order. Might as well get the free perks.
5850 is still a pretty damn beefy card, you shouldn't have any issues.I have a feeling I'm going to need to upgrade my 5850 as well, but I don't see any reason not to pre-order. Might as well get the free perks.
I ran everything on high in the alpha with my old Q6600 and a GTX285. That was with 32 players playing Rush. I dont know how much difference 64 players and all of the air power will make, I guess we will find out soon when the beta releases.
Posted 8/31/11 12:28 pm ET by Matt Clark in News, PC, PS3, Xbox 360
A couple weeks ago in Cologne, Germany, EA and DICE showed off a few minutes of co-op mode in "Battlefield 3." The "Exfiltration" mission had the two-player team escorting a political defector out of hostile territory, and while it didn't appear to reinvent the wheel, the mode certainly looks like a lot of fun. Writing on the PlayStation Blog this morning, DICE junior product manager Tommy Rydling shared a few more details on what to expect in October.
While the GamesCom demo highlighted the use of teamwork in taking down enemies in tandem, you'll have to work closely with a partner in other ways to advance through "Battlefield 3" co-op successfully. Rydling pointed out a couple scenarios, like working a mounted gun while your pal flies a chopper, or covering their back while they disarm a bomb.
You're responsible for your teammate's life in the game, as well. If your buddy takes a bad hit and goes down, you can revive them with the "Man down!" mechanic. If both players go down, you'll end up with a game over. This sounds a lot like "Left 4 Dead," except in "Battlefield 3" hopefully your jerk friends don't leave you behind as zombie chow.
Rydling also mentioned that while the co-op mode story runs within the same scenario as the single-player campaign, the missions follow a unique series of events with an "explosive finish." Even more interesting, the co-op missions feature randomized events, so there could be quite a bit of replayability. That's not to mention that co-op playthroughs can land you unlockable gear rewards, usable in normal multiplayer matches.
"There are a number of weapons that you can unlock in co-op and take with you to the regular multiplayer modes," Rydling wrote. "These unlocks are based on your combined scores accumulated throughout the co-op campaign."
Those co-op scores will also show up on the new "Battlefield 3" social network, Battlelog. Leaderboard -type score tracking, random experiences, and weapon rewards could make the co-op mode a rather addicting proposition.
Ive just come back from a fascinating and noisy day at EA DICE, seeing and playing Battlefield 3 with the winners of our recent competition. I have quite a few BF3-related posts due over the next couple of days as a result, but lets start off with the games executive producer Patrick Bach talking about why he believes it can be tricky for games to present more authentic situations, such as a Battlefield level containing innocent, unarmed civilians. He reckons that, given the option, many gamers cant resist an opportunity to be bad and, he fears, game-makers would be the ones blamed for their players naughtier choices. For instance, shooting one of said innocent, unarmed civilians
Responding to victorious RPS reader/compo entrant Joe OConnors question as to whether Battlefield 3′s story would delve into the moral arguments around war, Bach argued that Games are where movies were in the 30s or 40s, when it went from a technical spectacle to hey, wait a minute we can actually use this to tell something, be political and things like that. I think we are on the verge of seeing things like that.
However, potentially holding that back is that if you put the player in front of a choice where they can do good things or bad things, they will do bad things, go dark side because people think its cool to be naughty, they wont be caught
In a game where its more authentic, when you have a gun in your hand and a child in front of you what would happen? Well the player would probably shoot that child.
This is something Bach wants to avoid, because while the choice to do that bad thing would have been the players, We would be the ones to be blamed. We have to build our experiences so we dont put the player in experiences where they can do bad things. While not explicitly mentioned, the spectre of Modern Warfare 2 and its notorious No Russian level seemed to this correspondent to loom large here.
So, Bach admitted that there was a degree of self-censoring necessary to limit potentially disagreeable player behaviour. Me personally, Im trying to stay away from civilians in games like BF because I think people will do bad. I dont want to see videos on the internet where people shoot civilians. Thats something I will sanitise by removing that feature from the game.
Importantly, That doesnt mean that I dont want people to feel that war is not good, We are trying to do something that is more mature. Mature not being gore some people confuse the two. Thats childish actually, to want more blood.
Bach hinted that something in Battlefield 3′s singleplayer narrative would involve a more thoughtful look at the nature of war, but wouldnt be drawn on any specifics as yet.
I think games need to grow up a bit, he felt, but was sure that They will grow with gamers. There will always be games for children I want games for grown-ups, games I can play. As long as Im in the business I will make games that I want to play.
More comments from Bach tomorrow, plus a preview or two of the stuff Ive played and seen here.
By Alec Meer on September 1st, 2011 at 3:32 pm.
I have a frankly frightening amount of interview material from my trip to see Battlefield 3 at EA DICE HQ earlier this week, but before I lower myself into the tenth circle of hell that is transcribing the main hour of it, heres an interesting side-discussion that came up when I asked Twitter for a few question suggestions. One of the first respondents was Minecraft-maker Notch, who asked us to ask DICE What are some best practices and lessons learned when awarding long-term rewards in a highly competitive game like Battlefield 3?
Heres what BF3′s executive producer Patrick Bach had to say in response which led to a discussion of best practice for creating in-game unlocks, how he thinks Bad Company 2 got it a bit wrong, and why he reckons devs should try and keep improving and expanding their games for several years after launch instead of putting out annual sequels. Whatever could he be referring to?
RPS: I have a question from your countryman Markus Notch Persson, who asks What are some best practices and lessons learned when awarding long-term rewards in a highly competitive game like Battlefield 3?
Patrick Bach: Oh Lets see if I understand the question. Is he talking about the actual in-game rewards, or the development rewards?
RPS: Im presuming its about the higher-end persistent unlocks.
Patrick Bach: I think the learning weve done is that if you make a good game, people spend a lot of time with it. If you make a great game, they will never leave. I think we maybe miscalculated with, for instance, Battlefield Bad Company, with a year. Its been out for a year and a half, and we thought people would spend probably half a year playing it and then it would start to trend down. Were actually at the same number of people playing today as we had three months after shipping. So its quite steady, how many people are playing the game. It actually went down slightly last Autumn when some other games were released, but it went right back up over Christmas when we released the Vietnam expansion pack.
So people are today playing the exact same amount of games as they did back then. So of course we miscalculated that, because we thought people would stop playing. And then people rank out and they unlock everything, and they start to feel fatigue for not getting more stuff. So I think the challenge is to figure out how long people will play this game for, and then make sure you have enough stuff for you to unlock. Because its not fun to have to play for ten years to unlock the last thing that doesnt make the game better, it makes it seem that theres no point to continue. But then again, you still want that carrot, dangling in front of you.
For Battlefield 3, we known that people play even more than Battlefield Bad Company 2, so were planning for even longer unlocks, a bigger unlock tree. So I think, to us, its understand how long people will play the game for, who will play the game, and how they will play the game. Based on that, which is the only information you can speculate on, try and give as much as you can for that period of time. So what were doing is, for instance, is deepening the game, but also broadening the game. Depending on your play style, you can actually unlock stuff based on a specific weapon or a specific class, rather than have everyone unlock everything.
RPS: Do you consciously factor in wanting people to move onto whatever your next game is , rather than stick to the older game, when you plan the length and number of unlocks?
Patrick Bach: But maybe you dont have to build the new game, do you? If people like the old one, then keep fixing that one, update it and make it even better. I think sometimes it turns too mechanical when people release new games every year, and just focus on how can I sell another copy, another copy, another copy? Of course companies need to make money to survive, but you can actually provide for the title you already have out on the market. You dont have to leave it, just because youve shipped it. You can go back to it and think can we add something to this, can we change something, what do people want? And then if you keep doing for a longer period of time, why start building something new? Of course you can always plan for the big next step, but if thats in two years, or three years, five years
RPS: [About 20 other questions which we'll run next week].
By NuyoRiquena on Aug 31, 2011
A few months ago, while at E3, I saw a trailer for Battlefield 3. I turned to my cameraman and said, Wow! This is going to better than Modern Warfare 3 if they make the story as powerful as that trailer was.
In the interest of full disclosure, I have never played Battlefield. None of them. I have nothing against the franchise it was merely a matter of choice and time. However, after spending some quality time with Battlefield 3, I will be playing this game. A lot.
Let it be known, I love shooters. Let it be known, try as I may, I am not a skilled PC gamer. I may even go so far as to say I am slightly below novice-level in the PC arena. Let it be known, I am a control freak. When I lose control, well, let us say I dont like it and it is obvious. While playing the PC build of Battlefield 3, I may have gotten a little on the frustrated side because while I looked down to see which key allowed me to change my weapon I was sniped. Suffice it to say, I was much better at dying. On the bright side, I was not the worst one on my team.
Once I got used to the basic controls of the PC multiplayer, I was able to fall in love with the beauty of the graphics and seamlessness of the actions. I was taken aback by the number of voices I heard coming through the Astro Gaming headsets as we fell into the groove of the 16v16 match. Strategy is the key and at first we continually dove down into the subway tunnels only to be met by a barrage of bullets. It helps to know the right people and with a little assistance (Thanks, Seeson!) we quickly started to flank right and make our way down towards the objective. Again full disclosure, we still lost. Despite all of this, the commentary coming out of the game was incredibly positive. We did not let our lack of skill taint the game experience.
The Playstation 3 co-op gameplay was, in a word, exciting. I am more comfortable with the PS3 controller so I was able to get into the game even more. As with everything in life, I jumped into my game late and was thrust into the action. My partner mentioned something about following him and I did until he died. After a shooting anyone who looked like an enemy, I figured everything out and we started running through the building taking out bad guys and saving good guys. Turns out we were supposed to rescue the hostage. *Oops* Our mistake was in not communicating better. Once we started talking we were able to better suppress the enemy, working as a team. I must admit I thoroughly enjoyed jumping in the truck and handling the big guns. While I am NASCAR-level pro in real life, driving in a video game is not something I enjoy so I left the maneuvering to my partner. The heavy artillery tore through the enemies and buildings with equal ease. I find I still enjoy demolition and there is plenty of it in this game.
My chief complaint? I didnt get enough time. I felt a little rushed through each preview. Or maybe, I just wanted more.
DICE is well-known for its multiplayer superiority and it was clear why when I was playing. The mission was challenging, yet another on the long list of reasons gamers will fall in love with Battlefield 3. No one wants to play a game they can run through in 4 hours and the only thing you return to is the store to trade in the game. We want replay value and socializing, hence the incredible popularity of great multiplayer options.
The game is true to the first-person shooter genre and the details are placing Battlefield 3 above its competitors. The storytelling will be a major factor in determining the final outcome and while I still dont know what the plot is, I am dying to find out. And the Frostbite 2 game engine has set a new standard. I have to comment on the amazing sound effects in the game. It may seem trivial to some but I find attention to detail in such things enhance a games experience but are often overlooked. Trailers are supposed to look good but when you get up close and personal with the actual game, it is just so damned pretty!
Battlefield 3 is clearly the one sitting on the throne and whether the competition can execute a successful coup in the fall remains to be seen. Either way, the only loser in this battle will be the gamer who forgets to make this game a part of their collection.
* Thank you to EA for hosting the event and introducing me to Battlefield. Special thanks to Gunnar Optiks, Razer and Off Duty Gamers for coolest goodies this side of the Mississippi!
It's slightly longer than MW2's, according to lead designer David Goldfarb.
US, August 31, 2011
by Colin Campbell
David Goldfarb, lead designer of Battlefield 3 has been talking about the game's single-player campaign, and facing questions on the shooter's length.
A VG247 interviewer said that he had spent six hours playing through 2009's Modern Warfare 2's single-player campaign, and asked if Battlefield 3 would be longer. Goldfarb replied, "I'd say it was probably slightly more than that. Based on our play-times it's probably more than that, but it's not twice as long. But, again, we'll see. When you play it on hard difficulty, it'll take a lot more time. It's all about making sure the experience is as awesome as possible. I'd rather have six hours of awesome than 12 hours of 'meh'."
He added that the company was aware that some players would want to go back and play the single-player campaign, rather than just playing multiplayer. "I think we have some pretty cool achievements that people will want to go back and get," he said. "It's not like an RPG in that way, but we have tried to incentivize people to come back and play on different difficulties, and so on."
Goldfarb also addressed the game's story-mode, and the political situations it would cover. Battlefield 3 is set in a modern-day Middle East combat setting, but developer DICE and publisher EA say they want to avoid "demonizing" any population groups.
He said, "It's not about religions, or populations of people and it's not about countries. It is fiction, and we have to be very cautious about what it suggests because people will take it in a certain way. We're really trying to make it feel real, but at the same time we have an obligation to not demonize people or places, and I think that's something that's really important to us."
Thursday, September 01, 2011
By Max Parker
When "Battlefield 3" comes out Oct. 25, the military-based shooter will be taking aim at its rival, "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3," which hits shelves two weeks later. Patrick Bach, executive producer for "Battlefield 3," recently discussed what to expect from the game.
Does "Battlefield 3" have an all-new story line for the series? Is it linked to "Bad Company 2"?
The story line is completely unique and does not tie back into our Bad Company series. In "Battlefield: Bad Company 2," the tone is more light-hearted and fun, compared to "Battlefield 3's" storyline which is entirely new and more authentic. We are working with ex-SAS [Special Air Service] operator Andy McNab, who brings a wealth of military knowledge to the table. Andy has helped us in a few key areas, from the dialogue and helping us understand how soldiers speak to the [motion capture] of the characters and weapon interaction in the game.
How long a campaign can we expect?
This really depends on the difficulty setting and skill level of the player but we expect the campaign to take about 10 hours for the average player.
What aspects did you focus on when creating both the single player and multiplayer?
With "Battlefield 3" it all starts with our new engine Frostbite 2, which ... serves as the power center for the game by allowing us to deliver superior performance in character animation, visual rendering, destruction, audio and depth of scale.
Did you consider fan feedback about "Bad Company 2" when developing "Battlefield 3?"
We definitely take this into consideration when designing the game. A few examples of this is how we are bringing back [the prone option], which was missing from the "Battlefield: Bad Company" series. Another bit of feedback we've received from our console community is the request for server browsers on the console which allow them to select exactly what server they play on, so we're adding that to the console version as well.
There's been talk about the frame rate of the console version being less than its PC counterpart. Is "Battlefield 3" best experienced on PC?
"Battlefield 3" is the only game, regardless if you're on PC or console, that can deliver an all-out warfare experience complete with tanks, jets and more. ... We want players to feel the battle, the intensity of the fight. This is all made possible due to the power of Frostbite 2. We've made a conscious decision to stick with 30 FPS on console. This is not due to technical limitations but more of a design decision. With the number of players we support on our large-scale maps in addition to our signature vehicle warfare and destruction, "Battlefield 3" lends itself well to this frame-rate and is the right gameplay balance.
Are there any features that will be in the PC version that won't make it to console?
The PC version of Battlefield 3 will support up to 64 players in multiplayer whereas the console version supports up to 24. Another feature that will be specific to the PC version is the Command Rose, which allows you to use your keyboard to communicate with your fellow soldiers.
Subscriptions-based content is being discussed for a few online games on the horizon. What's your opinion on adding paid subscriptions for online multiplayer?
"Battlefield 3" is not subscription based. However, we are introducing a whole new feature called Battlelog. "Battlefield" has always been an incredibly social, team-based experience and we want to take that to the next level. Battlelog will be a completely free service that will give you a hub of social tools that will allow you to connect, communicate and play with friends in-game as well as on the web and your mobile devices. Through the network's news feed, called Battlefeed, you will be able to stay up-to-date on the current events going on in your own network. From players logging in, ranking up and receiving awards to friends unlocking achievements and new weapons, Battlelog keeps you in the know all in real-time, and it is entirely free.
Sweet! My B-day is coming up soon.Well I learned something today. There is a difference in the coupon code you get. The 25% off from the gun club is as far as I can tell a bonus of signing up. On your birthday they send you another coupon (this one without any special restrictions in fine print) and this one actually applies and works for BF3. Since it would knock off all of 2 bucks at this point I won't bother, but that is the difference! Now to go deal with customer service and get them to knock it off the price of TOR
twitter.com/450bq: "@Demize99 how long would it take on average to complete a kit?"
twitter.com/Demize99: "@450bq If you unlock every weapon, every gadget, and every unlock for every weapon... something like 100 hours."
Not sure if I'd put that much effort into one kit, unless I got a billion point adamantium star at the end, but it's good to know this game isn't going to plateau the unlocks so early. Unlocks are a small part of the game, but it was pretty dull in BC2 advancing ranks at a snail's pace for nothing (after 29 I think) whilst being slaughtered by suspicious rank 50 players.
Thu, Sep 01, 2011 | 07:13 BST
Will BF3′s solo-play match its online component for quality? VG247 speaks to the head architect of Battlefield 3′s single-player campaign on its tone, length, commitment to sensitivity and more.
There can be little doubt that Battlefield 3 is the hottest core video game in the world right now, at least in terms of anticipation. After a carefully managed campaign of story trailers, multiplayer reveals and show demos on nuclear PCs, the DICE FPS has been pushed up into the very top tier of big budget action games for 2011, vying for control of the shooter category against Infinity Wards Modern Warfare 3.
But while its practically unthinkable that the games multiplayer will be anything less than spectacular, given the studios long history in the field, theres still a question mark over the single-player component. Graphically, theres no doubt: to argue that Frostbite 2 looks even a shade less than incredible youd have to be both mad and blind. But has the studio learned from pacing and immersion errors from the Bad Company campaigns to deliver a game-changing solo experience in BF3?
We asked David Goldfarb, the games lead designer, on a visit to DICEs Stockholm offices this week.
VG247: Battlefield single-player is traditionally not the strongest point of the franchise: its been multiplayer-focused right from the start. How are you coping with the pressure of creating the campaign?
David Goldfarb: I think we have a pretty good history having worked on Bad Company 1 and 2, but we know as a studio weve only made two single-player shooters and we have God knows how many multiplayer titles. Were well aware of what our strengths and weaknesses are. We do a couple of things; firstly, we do rely on multiplayer when it comes to mechanics. Thats the best way of getting the stupid out is to have a bunch of people play it. Thats where our core comes from in terms of movement and firing, and all that stuff.
And then because that is what it is, when it comes to making single-player, were well aware that were well ahead in many ways of multiplayer than we are in single-player, but that doesnt mean were any less ambitious in single-player.
Up to this point, Battlefield has been very much a fan-focused franchise. DICE takes a lot of care with listening to its fans. The IP is now being accelerated into this very top tier, this quadruple-A category, and you must be very aware of the type of product you need in terms of single-player to succeed. Even though youre pulling these elements of multiplayer, how aware are you that you have to lean on that really big, cinematic experience that you havent provided before?
Even when we did BC2, there were things we didnt do there that we were going to have to do when we did the next one, and not just because we were competing with others, but because we want to get better. There are things that weve done this time around that are miles ahead of where we were in BC2 when it comes to interactive storytelling, or the integration of cut-scenes and gameplay. In the past wed split them, and theyre hard. All that stuff; the way were dealing with animation and so on; all these systems which we had compartmentalized are now part of creating this dramatic experience that we know we need to create to satisfy ourselves more than anyone else.
How much of an edge do you think Frostbite 2 gives you in terms of creating this top tier single-player experience?
Quite a bit. I mean, theres a lot of stuff; theres workflow and everything, but theres sound, and animation is a huge part of it, as is lighting. The best thing is when people look at what weve done and they dont actually know why it feels real. We always get feedback, with people saying, This feels more real than other stuff, but we dont know why. Its because all those things are working together in harmony, and I think its because Frostbites a big part of how that feels to people.
What did you learn from the Bad Company games in terms of storytelling? Theyre quite flippant and jokey, and Battlefield 3 really isnt. Do you see this as a continuation, or is this something new?
Having worked on both and having written for both, I think it was really clear when I started that we were making something completely different. The biggest challenge, actually, was, Hows this going to feel different from those guys, because we dont want to make Bad Company 3 now; we want to make Battlefield 3 now.
We had to reboot everything, and ask what was going to make the franchise different this time. There was also a conscious articulation of the values that it would take to make that break. Its not that the guys we have now arent funny sometimes, or that there arent moments that arent humourous I guess, but the context is completely different. The stakes are much, much higher. We are trying to be authentic and grounded in a way that we never even came close to before. I think thats the thing were trying to be honest with ourselves about when we make this game: it is going to be, in some cases, scary to people that were doing the things were doing, but thats where we are.
I think a lot of your fans are concerned that you might chase the competition and go for this completely ridiculous storyline, with space stations exploding and so on.
We arent doing that. Its not about the competition. Youre always aware of what other people are doing, but I know I feel that when we made this game, theres a certain point at which it becomes unbelievable. I think its really important for myself and for others to keep it within that place where it feels current and plausible, and to me theres a very fine balance. We need to make it feel as though you could read a paper and feel this could have happened. Thats whats actually informing the requirements of the story: even if it is ridiculous, would you buy it in a credibility sense? Thats been a big part of why weve done stuff. And it has been very different in that way.
Youre creating a contemporary story in a believable warzone, and you have things in there like earthquakes. These things are very topical, and whats happening in the Middle East is extremely topical at the moment. How wary are you of crossing that line between wanting to sell a video game and keeping it in good taste?
I would say very. Ive said this before, I guess, but its not about religions, or populations of people and its not about countries. It is fiction, and in that way its something that, while we acknowledge it as fiction, we have to be very cautious about what it suggests because people will take it in a certain way. Were really trying to make it feel real, but at the same time we have an obligation to not demonize people or places, and I think thats something thats really important to us.
How do you actually check that? Is this just an internal thing?
Yeah. I mean, theres definitely stuff in that that we knows going to make people go, Woah. They did that? And I think we feel strongly about those moments, because ultimately its about characters, and its not about pointing the finger at a group of people. Were all pretty sensitive to that stuff.
Talking about the technicalities of the game itself: is it right that the co-op and single-player maps are completely different to the multiplayer maps?
Theyre completely different, and theyre all completely different from one another.
Can you explain the reasoning behind that? Why have you kept the two completely separate?
Single-player has its own campaign arc, and multiplayer has its arc, which uses some of the context of the SP but in its own way. MP shares some of the context of SP, but has, in some cases, broken free of that. We do all share the same context, but with MP we look forward into the future, to what might happen, and so we give people a bit more of a fantasy. I guess you could say that MP might be where SP leaves off in some cases. The reasoning is to give people enough latitude as they can have to design the maps.
How long is the campaign, roughly?
I cant actually tell you right now, but I would say its a pretty decent length. Its not Skyrim, but its not three hours, or anything like that. Im not sure, as were still working on the difficulty balancing, and that seems to make the pendulum swing quite a bit.
For the sake of argument, would you say its a more substantial experience than, say, Modern Warfare 2?
How long was Modern Warfare 2?
I think I finished it in about six hours.
Id say it was probably slightly more than that. Based on our play-times its probably more than that, but its not twice as long. But, again, well see. When you play it on hard difficulty, itll take a lot more time.
Its all about making sure the experience is as awesome as possible. Id rather have six hours of awesome than 12 hours of meh.
Is there going to be much replayability in the single-player? If theres one thing the Call of Duty campaigns are guilty of is that you play it and thats it. Do you intend for people to go back?
I think some people will. In terms or persistence, we have no done that for it, but I think we have some pretty cool achievements that people will want to go back and get. Its not like an RPG in that way, but we have tried to incentivize people to come back and play on different difficulties, and so on.
Where do you think youre pushing the envelope in terms of interactive storytelling?
Its interesting. I think its more about tone than anything else for us. To use the example of Modern Warfare: theyre doing things their way and theyre awesome at that, but we wanted to do things our way, and we hope that were awesome at that. And that means were doing Generation Kill and 24; thats closer to what were doing, I think. They may be weird bedfellows, but we are looking for a broad pacing, from 1-10 as opposed to 10-11. I think thats a pretty big deal for shooters, to try to do that kind of pacing, to have it be slow for a little while and to make people wait. Thats much harder than we thought it was.
For example, that sniper section on the roof from the Faultline stuff earlier this year? That shit took forever to get right. Just the first six minutes where you dont fire a shot took a long time to make it be good. People were like, Thats awesome. I didnt do anything for six minutes. But do you think you did? I think thats a big challenge. Its a challenge for all the disciplines. It sounds weird to say that weve succeeded in making you appreciate that nothing is happening for six minutes, but its a big deal.
Obviously, theres stuff thats much more about action, but I think its really a tone thing. That encompasses a lot of stuff.
Are you thinking in terms of story-based DLC? Obviously, DICE is famed for its multiplayer add-ons, but do you have plans for single-player additions with Battlefield 3?
We talked about it. I dont think weve made any decisions. The issue with single-player DLC is just how much value you get out of the investment from a studio perspective. Its a huge investment to make single-player content, and then its gone. We have talked about it, but I dont know. Its certainly something that, Im sure, will come up in the future, but we havent made any kind of decision that way for that reason.
If theres one thing that gets leveled at story-based campaigns is a question of variation. How mindful were you of that?
Very. When we did BC2, Id compare it to Diablo II, where they change your environment every 15 minutes. That was there thing. We did it to excess, almost, in BC2. This time around, one of the things with being more realistic and credible is that we do keep you in a area longer than we did in BC2 because everythings happening in that area, but the area itself is sub-divided and you get a very different feeling in different space. So yeah, were pretty conscious of that. We did everything we could.
Battlefield 3 releases in late October for PC, PS3 and 360.
is there any website or video that can offer my a run through/quick synopsis of this game? I've just recently gathered an interest for it, and know next to nothing. The gameplay videos i've seen look really intriguing though.
Edit: Me being stupid and all, didn't click the first page to see the orgy of info. Nvm :d
So still no beta out yet?
Nope, we've gotten jack info. How in the hell are they going to balance jet rape in the time they have left? I'm sure they have internal playtesting going on, but then, I'm sure they did for BF2 as well and we know how that turned out.
The beta is going to be just like it was for BC2. A few weeks before the release to iron out server load issues, and to gather data for a patch to be released later on.