Battlefield 3

By Crisp
in Gamers' Hangout

 Share

Recommended Posts

Veteran

DrJohnSmitherson

Posted
Posted

because only so many people can work on the code at one point. I could see that. Could you elaborate?

because the multiplayer can only have so many art assets. Could current assets not be improved or be made faster since there would be more people?

because they can only test and balance so many multiplayer maps before launch, no matter how many people that make them. Can't the people testing singleplayer go and test multiplayer? And if it's the same people testing, then they would have time to test multiplayer since they would be no singleplayer

because the SP team, don't do multiplayer, they do SP. they would be useless for MP. I agree SOME would be useless, but they are still making a videogame, I'm sure they could work on multiplayer without much of a problem

because lot of people buy games for SP to and then get into the MP. I totally agree. But that doesn't really matter for this conversation. :blink:

no Why do you think that?

Proficient

epk

Posted
Posted

Prolly not if they did it half way, but I do agree with you that if they had put their minds (and plans, and money) in a multiplayer only game, it could've made a different. By the way, I don't think Andrew is saying no SP at all, he prolly means it'd be ok with something like in BF2 where SP is MP with bots.

Veteran

DrJohnSmitherson

Posted
Posted

Sorry thatguyandrew1992, but I don't think you have a shred of a clue what you're talking about. Budgeting developer workflow is much more complicated than taking a team of 100 and splitting things even. It's not that simple. Art assets and animations, things like that can be swapped interchangably. I think you'd have to read more into an atypical development process rather than give an argument devoid of any critical thinking.

The argument, by the way, is pretty silly to begin with.

I suppose so lol :laugh:

Haha I guess it is, I just want to understand their point of view.

Grand Master

Digitalx

Posted
Posted

It's kinda obvious the simple reason there's single player like it or not is because of consoles and because this is intended to be a full price physical media game which consolers can't justify like us on pc can as we done with bf2.

They could spend time making an awesome online exclusive game for pc with only multiplayer... but unfortunately they're only interested in making money and not quality games anymore so yeah they're burning unnecessary resources in wrong areas for their own gain so it comes around really.

Grand Master

HawkMan

Posted
Posted

the code can only be split up into so many modules, for efficient coding eahc module can only really have 2-3 active coders, usually 3 gets to many, and most modules can't have more than 1, or they'll mess up for each other.

No, more people can't make assets faster or better. one guy can only make one asset, then handed over to the texture guy and animation guy where applicable.

Test people are actually rather irrelevant, at some point you will simply have to many of them and they become less useful more of a hindrance. and they're generally cheap, so you can easily have enough testers for MP and SP.

part of the teams are shard between the two, mostly the art teams. (getting back to this). the rest, no they can't really do anything useful that the people on the MP team don't already do better. they'd just be in the way.

As for the art thing. Art is actually the last thing they start working on in the game, and the first thing they finish. coding starts first, and coding+QnA+Debugging finishes. Art while it's the most visible part of the game is the fastest part to complete. Hence why artists will often switch to work on art assets for the other team during dev when needed. Hence more artists aren't useful, and they won't help. on top of that. On top of that if they where to make more levels. they'd run into other problems, first the players would have to many maps to chose from which would cause an issue with players being to spread out. and more importantly. the AnA for the maps take a lot longer than makign them, QnA also including debugging, balancing and bug checking.

Grand Master

SimplySchizo

Posted
Posted

I couldn't care less about the engine, nor the graphics. All I want are those epic battlefield sound effects with squad coms alongside the strategic gameplay that was found within bf2.

I loved playing commander in bf2 and having a good commander made a huge difference in win/loss. A commanders ability to scan the field of battle and place UAV's or lay down artillery fire was simply awesome!

Being able to hinder an opposing commander by having a specop take their UAV Stations and artillery guns offline was great and were pivotal to winning.

Battlefield has always been about the teamplay support and every class having to play their roles. Aside from excellent vehicle balancing.

Any focus taken away from each classes individuality and strategic necessity to win a battle will result in a failure imo.

It cannot be any less than what bf2 was. To this day there isn't another game that brings to the table was bf2 does.

BC2 is a great game. Now implement larger maps, more vehicles, artillery placements, uav stations, a commander including a squad/leader com hierarchy giving it strategic sense to the overall battle and you have an ill game!

With BC2's support xp points, imagine a commander issuing orders to takeout opposing artillery guns/uav's or having to defend certain posts or even repairs.

People would actually follow orders if they want that nice bit of xp.

I consider myself a hardcore bf fan as I've put in thousands of hours into the franchise. Finally seeing a BF3 on the horizon is a dream come true.

Still, I hold high expectations and anything less than what was BF2 will be a complete let down. I have a feeling things will be dumbed down for the console but I sure as hell hope not.

Grand Master

TheLegendOfMart

Posted
Posted

Ok. Let's say they planned 5 maps. Then they decided to scrap singleplayer and move them to multiplayer. Wouldn't you think we could get MORE maps?

No because they werent limited to 5 because of any sort of time constraint or lack of resources, thats the amount of maps they wanted to put in the first place.

Grand Master

Lamp0

Posted
Posted

It's kinda obvious the simple reason there's single player like it or not is because of consoles and because this is intended to be a full price physical media game which consolers can't justify like us on pc can as we done with bf2.

They could spend time making an awesome online exclusive game for pc with only multiplayer... but unfortunately they're only interested in making money and not quality games anymore so yeah they're burning unnecessary resources in wrong areas for their own gain so it comes around really.

Here we go, more drivel.

Grand Master

TheLegendOfMart

Posted
Posted

What's with this singleplayer nonesense?

If you don't want to play it, don't play it. I, for one, LOVE singleplayer.

*Just as long as it's none of that BC2 "Take a step, shoot a round, go to a 5 minute cinematic, rinse lather and repeat." crap.

I quite enjoyed the storyline in BC2 it wasnt some omg look America is awesome story.

Grand Master

Lamp0

Posted
Posted

feel free to prove me wrong by all means.

You say that like you made a sound argument in the first place. It was conjecture and utter drivel. If you haven't enjoyed the last few Dice games then good for you, but that doesn't mean they are any less committed to making great games. I enjoyed Bad Company 2 a whole lot, and I have little doubt BF3 will be a fantastic game.

Veteran

LingeringSoul

Posted
Posted

You say that like you made a sound argument in the first place. It was conjecture and utter drivel. If you haven't enjoyed the last few Dice games then good for you, but that doesn't mean they are any less committed to making great games. I enjoyed Bad Company 2 a whole lot, and I have little doubt BF3 will be a fantastic game.

+1 for this post.

The addition of single-player is likely there mainly as a bullet-point, but saying that DICE is "only interested in making money and not quality games anymore" is a little far-fetched. I'm trying to envision the DICE offices, with boardroom meetings revolving around discussions on how to create mediocre games. Somehow I don't think that's happening.

I also enjoyed BC2. It has its flaws, but it was so fun that I was willing to look past those flaws. From what I've read on Battlefield 3 (which is admittedly a small amount), it sounds like DICE is going the extra mile to ensure that the PC version is a true PC experience, and so I'm doubly excited for BF3 now.

Grand Master

Yusuf M. Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

As much as I liked BC2, I would've hated to see damage modifiers in BF3. Magnum ammo became the number one specialization because of the 25% bullet damage boost. Not having it meant a higher chance of dying in a gunfight.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing