Battlefield 3

By Crisp
in Gamers' Hangout

 Share

Recommended Posts

Grand Master

TheLegendOfMart

Posted
Posted

Multiplayer sure wont be AS GOOD as it could be, since there is a singleplayer.

Why not?

DICE has the time and money to take their time, coding single player will take as long as it needs to take its not going to take time away from working on multiplayer, id even bet that they have staff split between the single and multiplayer aspects of the game separately.

Grand Master

Lingwo

Posted
Posted

Yeah multiplayer and singleplayer will be being developed alongside each other with two separate teams. DICE are big enough to handle both and they've been developing the battlefield series for years, so it won't suffer.

The only reason people think it will suffer is because of call of duty and their dev cycle for the series.

Proficient

epk

Posted
Posted

Why so many people want single player? one of the reasons I love so much Battlefield, Mafia and Max Payne is that they all focus on what they're good at. Over the years I've seen so many games trying to overreach and ending up with either boring singleplayer experiences or sucky MP plagued with empty servers. Really, there's just so little games that can do both alright (off the top of my head, Quake 2 and the original Fear after "Combat" was released) it makes me wish developers just stick to their main idea.

Hey, if both SP and MP end up being amazing, all the merrier! but it's quite a risk.

Veteran

DrJohnSmitherson

Posted
Posted

All the time, resources and money could be put towards multiplayer. Why not merge both teams and have them work on multiplayer? I mean if you guys want a single player and don't mind that multiplayer won't have AS MUCH work put towards it, fine. But don't say having a singleplayer doesn't effect it, cause it does.

Grand Master

HawkMan

Posted
Posted

All the time, resources and money could be put towards multiplayer. Why not merge both teams and have them work on multiplayer? I mean if you guys want a single player and don't mind that multiplayer won't have AS MUCH work put towards it, fine. But don't say having a singleplayer doesn't effect it, cause it does.

No actually it doesn't.

look at MoH. multiplayer and singleplayer where effectively two different games, they didn't even share art assets.

Grand Master

Kerm

Posted
Posted

I'm very much into Multiplayer aspects, BC2 at the moment. But I still love smashing the single player campaigns, and I do think they have gotten extremely good recently. I loved all of the single player campaigns in BC2, MoH and Black Ops.

Although I did think MoH was the best and BO the weakest.

Grand Master

Yusuf M. Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

All the time, resources and money could be put towards multiplayer. Why not merge both teams and have them work on multiplayer? I mean if you guys want a single player and don't mind that multiplayer won't have AS MUCH work put towards it, fine. But don't say having a singleplayer doesn't effect it, cause it does.

You don't know that for sure. It would make sense for DICE to have a team for SP and a team for MP. And you're totally right with your last statement. Often times, MP maps are based on SP maps so having a SP campaign has positive benefits.

I'm all for having a MP-only Battlefield 3 if it means a better MP experience but let's not be too selfish here. Instead, let's take comfort in the fact that the game will be heavily MP-oriented and that their focus is to provide an amazing online experience. As I said before, I see the SP campaign as an added bonus.

Veteran

DrJohnSmitherson

Posted
Posted

No actually it doesn't.

look at MoH. multiplayer and singleplayer where effectively two different games, they didn't even share art assets.

Well that's not an efficient way of making a game. And all those guys making the singleplayer could have worked on multiplayer. Maybe it would have turned out better. :laugh:

Let's just say dice has 100 people making battlefield 3. 50 working on multiplayer and 50 working on singleplayer. Wouldn't you think multiplayer could be better if all 100 were working on it? Sure maybe some guys wouldn't be necessary, so they could be replaced with people who would be necessary.

You don't know that for sure. It would make sense for DICE to have a team for SP and a team for MP. And you're totally right with your last statement. Often times, MP maps are based on SP maps so having a SP campaign has positive benefits.

I'm all for having a MP-only Battlefield 3 if it means a better MP experience but let's not be too selfish here. Instead, let's take comfort in the fact that the game will be heavily MP-oriented and that their focus is to provide an amazing online experience. As I said before, I see the SP campaign as an added bonus.

That's true I dont KNOW for sure. I'm not saying BF3 will have bad multiplayer either. I'm sure it will be amazing. I just think it could be even more amazing, if there was no time spent on singleplayer.

Grand Master

Lamp0

Posted
Posted

All the time, resources and money could be put towards multiplayer. Why not merge both teams and have them work on multiplayer? I mean if you guys want a single player and don't mind that multiplayer won't have AS MUCH work put towards it, fine. But don't say having a singleplayer doesn't effect it, cause it does.

No it doesn't. You're thinking they are pulling resources from multiplayer to work on singleplayer. They aren't. They have a separate team, whom would, probably, otherwise be working on other projects. They already have the necessary time, money and resources for multiplayer. Adding more doesn't mean it's going to be better. In fact adding more would probably hinder it's development, as the old saying goes: Too many chefs spoil the broth.

Grand Master

Ayepecks

Posted
Posted

All the time, resources and money could be put towards multiplayer. Why not merge both teams and have them work on multiplayer? I mean if you guys want a single player and don't mind that multiplayer won't have AS MUCH work put towards it, fine. But don't say having a singleplayer doesn't effect it, cause it does.

If they have two separate teams working on it, it's not like one team is getting short changed and the other benefits. What logic is there in merging the two teams to make the multiplayer? Do you honestly think having a 120-person team instead of a 60-person team is going to make the multiplayer even better? DICE has employees that have concentrated on the singleplayer in the previous Bad Company games -- it would make no sense to have them now work on the multiplayer aspect of the game. Having a singleplayer doesn't change the multiplayer. What do you think they're going to be lacking by not having the singleplayer team working on multiplayer?

Grand Master

HawkMan

Posted
Posted

Well that's not an efficient way of making a game. And all those guys making the singleplayer could have worked on multiplayer. Maybe it would have turned out better. :laugh:

Let's just say dice has 100 people making battlefield 3. 50 working on multiplayer and 50 working on singleplayer. Wouldn't you think multiplayer could be better if all 100 were working on it? Sure maybe some guys wouldn't be necessary, so they could be replaced with people who would be necessary.

That's true I dont KNOW for sure. I'm not saying BF3 will have bad multiplayer either. I'm sure it will be amazing. I just think it could be even more amazing, if there was no time spent on singleplayer.

More people working on something doesn't make it better, in fact often it can make it worse. more chefs and all that.

Veteran

DrJohnSmitherson

Posted
Posted

No it doesn't. You're thinking they are pulling resources from multiplayer to work on singleplayer. They aren't. They have a separate team, whom would, probably, otherwise be working on other projects. They already have the necessary time, money and resources for multiplayer. Adding more doesn't mean it's going to be better. In fact adding more would probably hinder it's development, as the old saying goes: Too many chefs spoil the broth.

No, I know they have a separate team. But the people making the levels for singleplayer could make maps for multiplayer instead. People making models and textures that won't be seen in multiplayer could be spent making models and textures for multiplayer. People creating the scripts and animations for single player could be making them for multiplayer instead.

Grand Master

TheLegendOfMart

Posted
Posted

How many maps do you expect them to make, two people cant work on the same map as any changes one makes wont get copied over to the map the other is making. There isnt a strict time limit to these things so there is no need for loads of people to be doing the same job.

Veteran

DrJohnSmitherson

Posted
Posted

How many maps do you expect them to make, two people cant work on the same map as any changes one makes wont get copied over to the map the other is making. There isnt a strict time limit to these things so there is no need for loads of people to be doing the same job.

I have no expectations on the number of maps. I'm saying that there could be MORE if they weren't doing them for singleplayer.

Grand Master

Ayepecks

Posted
Posted

No, I know they have a separate team. But the people making the levels for singleplayer could make maps for multiplayer instead. People making models and textures that won't be seen in multiplayer could be spent making models and textures for multiplayer. People creating the scripts and animations for single player could be making them for multiplayer instead.

You think there aren't people doing that in the multiplayer team? You think having more people will inherently make that portion of the game better?

Grand Master

TheLegendOfMart

Posted
Posted

I have no expectations on the number of maps. I'm saying that there could be MORE if they weren't doing them for singleplayer.

As already stated they arent working to time constraints, they have already planned out how many multiplayer maps they are going to make, they dont just keep making things till they run out of time, having more people wont get things done any better.

Veteran

DrJohnSmitherson

Posted
Posted

You think there aren't people doing that in the multiplayer team? You think having more people will inherently make that portion of the game better?

I know that there are. Yes. Because their time could be spent on making multiplayer better. If they all switched to multiplayer and suddenly the game was ready to be released earlier, then great, or maybe they could have added more to it.

I'm sorry if I sound illogical I just don't understand why no one sees my point. :pinch:

As already stated they arent working to time constraints, they have already planned out how many multiplayer maps they are going to make, they dont just keep making things till they run out of time, having more people wont get things done any better.

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?

Grand Master

HawkMan

Posted
Posted

I know that there are. Yes. Because their time could be spent on making multiplayer better. If they all switched to multiplayer and suddenly the game was ready to be released earlier, then great, or maybe they could have added more to it.

I'm sorry if I sound illogical I just don't understand why no one sees my point. :pinch:

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?

because only so many people can work on the code at one point.

because the multiplayer can only have so many art assets.

because they can only test and balance so many multiplayer maps before launch, no matter how many people that make them.

because the SP team, don't do multiplayer, they do SP. they would be useless for MP.

because lot of people buy games for SP to and then get into the MP.

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

Enthusiast

Ligan

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. To a certain point, more people working on something does NOT equal more quality and replayability.

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