Technology has powered their design but that doesn't make the OP a vapid statement. There's clear credence to the idea that technology enhances gameplay, as evidenced with the destruction technology in Bad Company 2, but your initial comment implied that such a thing wasn't true and that their comment was a self servicing schtick meant to advertise their technology.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
EDGE asks DICE about FPS stagnation, DICE: "technology against FPS stagnation"
- Thread starter kvn
- Start date
Technology has powered their design but that doesn't make the OP a vapid statement. There's clear credence to the idea that technology enhances gameplay, as evidenced with the destruction technology in Bad Company 2, but your initial comment implied that such a thing wasn't true and that their comment was a self servicing schtick meant to advertise their technology.
Metalmurphy
Member
SLEEPS7ALK3R
Banned
MIRROR'S EDGE 2
FUCKING DO IT.
FUCKING DO IT.
Is it confirmed for Dead Space ?
A Mass Effect game with the Frostbite engine would be awesome. Can you imagine going through space with something that looks as good as BF3 on PC with details at Ultra?
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
It's confirmed not.
Well, I don't think that they'd turn around and say 'yeah you know what, the technology isn't important what makes a great FPS game is such-and-such'.
I mean, let's ask Infinity Ward what they think makes a good FPS. Do you think they'd tell you it's technology?
A lot of Modern Warfare's success was down to technology, yes. Their engine is central to why people have gravitated towards the franchise, on top of smart design. It's a fusion, not a guarantee.
DICE aren't saying technology 'makes' a good first person shooter, you're misreading that, they're saying technological advancements help to prevent stagnation in the genre, which as we've already established with the likes of Bad Company 2, has elements of truth to it; despite your initial assertion that DICE's comment was a disingenuous ploy to wank off their own technology.
ii Stryker
Banned
After playing BC1 & 2 and then slogging through the retarded abomination DICE has the audacity of calling a single player campaign in BF3, they are a bunch of fucking scripted hypocrites.
The BF3 SP campaign was a step BACKWARDS Karl. Oooh look we can smear shit all over the players camera then blind them with overdone lens flare and then bore them with horribly scripted rote story telling.
The BC1 SP campaign was the high point in the franchise and they've been aping the COD franchise ever since.
The BF3 SP campaign was a step BACKWARDS Karl. Oooh look we can smear shit all over the players camera then blind them with overdone lens flare and then bore them with horribly scripted rote story telling.
The BC1 SP campaign was the high point in the franchise and they've been aping the COD franchise ever since.
mclaren777
Member
*but only if they do it right
You had a quick time event stabbing a rat.
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
Absolutely. People love Call of Duty because of how smooth the gameplay is and that is due to how they choose to use their technology.
Anticitizen One
Banned
First Person Shooters need to go back to crazy fantasy and sci fi settings and not be dudebro interpretations of modern and historical conflicts. More D00M less COD pls
iamvampire
Banned
I blame everything wrong with FPS games on corridor 'cinematic' FPS games.
Quick Time Events.
In game cut scenes.
'Follow me down this endless corridor that consists of the whole fucking game'
Fuck that.
Quick Time Events.
In game cut scenes.
'Follow me down this endless corridor that consists of the whole fucking game'
Fuck that.
professor_t
Member
In more specific terms, what did people hate about BF3's SP campaign? Yeah, boring, I know, but why was it boring?
I actually thought it was solid, but I'm an unrepentant graphics whore. Still, I'd love to have a better sense of why people hate it so much.
I actually thought it was solid, but I'm an unrepentant graphics whore. Still, I'd love to have a better sense of why people hate it so much.
Starbuck2907
Member
I can't believe people are discussing the BF3 single-player campaign. It's basically designed to be a tutorial for multiplayer and to give EA something to print on the back of the box for consumers who "demand" a campaign mode. I, and most of my friends, have over 200 hours in BF3 and none of us have ever touched the campaign mode past the first level. However, we did finish the co-op campaign in order to unlock some weapons.
Criticizing BF3's single player campaign is like criticizing Dead Space 2 because you did not enjoy its shitty multiplayer. No one plays DS2 for shitty multiplayer, and no one plays BF3 for its campaign. Those modes are there to serve a marketing purpose (deliver a "full" product), and in the case of DS2, maybe to extend the life of the game. But in reality, no one gives a damn about those game modes. They aren't the reason people play those games.
Criticizing BF3 for its campaign...for most people who actually play BF3, I would think that the campaign is the furthest thing from their mind. No one gives enough of a shit about it to discuss it at all, to complain about it or otherwise.
But moving on, BF3 does have some hit detection issues on console, but the issues aren't that bad, and on PC the "network smoothing" option has greatly helped things.
Back on topic, DICE is right. People do care about spectacles. BF3's multiplayer is full of spectacle. Planes crashing, choppers crashing, buildings being blown to pieces, etc. Those pieces of spectacle are what make the game different from many, many different games, and their technology allows them to make the game different. The thing about BF3 though is that the spectacle is tied to actual gameplay changes. That's what makes it great. I never really got into Call of Duty multiplayer. I still play the campaigns, because I do have high expectations of "spectacle" and fun from CoD campaigns, but then I immediately trade in the games because the multiplayer is so limited. People can camp behind walls and it just makes the game seem silly. In BF3, I can blow the wall and the guy camping behind it to pieces. The technology has changed gameplay (compared to CoD) and it has added some spectacle (destruction) that was not available in most other games. So, yea, the technology has to evolve, and the spectacle comes with that. Hell, much of BF3's multiplayer is built around the spectacle of things blowing up (buildings, walls, vechicles, aircraft, etc) along with a great leveling system and multiplayer design. ...BF3 represents an evolution of technology...while CoD is an example of a "stagnant" franchise so far as the technology goes. They make a few game engine changes every now and then, but basically, CoD multiplayer engines are essentially the same other than a few lighting effects from game to game.
Criticizing BF3's single player campaign is like criticizing Dead Space 2 because you did not enjoy its shitty multiplayer. No one plays DS2 for shitty multiplayer, and no one plays BF3 for its campaign. Those modes are there to serve a marketing purpose (deliver a "full" product), and in the case of DS2, maybe to extend the life of the game. But in reality, no one gives a damn about those game modes. They aren't the reason people play those games.
Criticizing BF3 for its campaign...for most people who actually play BF3, I would think that the campaign is the furthest thing from their mind. No one gives enough of a shit about it to discuss it at all, to complain about it or otherwise.
But moving on, BF3 does have some hit detection issues on console, but the issues aren't that bad, and on PC the "network smoothing" option has greatly helped things.
Back on topic, DICE is right. People do care about spectacles. BF3's multiplayer is full of spectacle. Planes crashing, choppers crashing, buildings being blown to pieces, etc. Those pieces of spectacle are what make the game different from many, many different games, and their technology allows them to make the game different. The thing about BF3 though is that the spectacle is tied to actual gameplay changes. That's what makes it great. I never really got into Call of Duty multiplayer. I still play the campaigns, because I do have high expectations of "spectacle" and fun from CoD campaigns, but then I immediately trade in the games because the multiplayer is so limited. People can camp behind walls and it just makes the game seem silly. In BF3, I can blow the wall and the guy camping behind it to pieces. The technology has changed gameplay (compared to CoD) and it has added some spectacle (destruction) that was not available in most other games. So, yea, the technology has to evolve, and the spectacle comes with that. Hell, much of BF3's multiplayer is built around the spectacle of things blowing up (buildings, walls, vechicles, aircraft, etc) along with a great leveling system and multiplayer design. ...BF3 represents an evolution of technology...while CoD is an example of a "stagnant" franchise so far as the technology goes. They make a few game engine changes every now and then, but basically, CoD multiplayer engines are essentially the same other than a few lighting effects from game to game.
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
It was poorly scripted and never got exciting.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
That's a direct result of lag compensation, not bad hit detection.
Old Gimlet Eyes
Member
No way does anything in Single Player prepare you for the insanity of BF's multiplayer. I actually wish it did. It would be a better campaign if so, and might prepare people to not get their asses kicked online.
Anyone arguing that the destruction in BF3 is better than that of BC2 is wholly incapable of being an impartial critic of either game. You are insane.
Maastricht
Member
What this man says.
And don't just replace guns with bows and arrows ... that's missing the tip.
To Far Away Times
Member
Mirror's Edge is the cure for FPS stagnation.
NullPointer
Member
It wasn't even the beginning of a halfway decent tutorial for multiplayer, so I don't know what you're talking about. And the biggest marketing push for this game was dedicated to BF3's single player, which they drip fed to the audience over months.
But honestly, these are the only guys who can talk about technology and not make me wince. Its their tech investments that allowed for sprawling battlefields, destruction and their notable mix of immersive vehicle and infantry combat. That's something that their multiplayer fans have enjoyed for years, and us single player guys could only begin to appreciate in Bad Company 1.
When it comes to DICE they should really just ditch the whole idea of linear single player storylines. It stands against every strength Battlefield has. Go back to the more open ended Bad Company 1 for inspiration or just drop the single player entirely and swap it with a more fleshed out Onslaught co-op mode from BC2.
Tech has gotten them to this point, but tech alone won't keep them riding high.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
My dream BF3 SP content is a collection of MP oriented training challenges with bots. Equipment training, vehicle training, etc. There's a lot of depth in the game that people will never explore. I just found out how to launch smoke mortars last week.
dragonelite
Member
They have a option now that you can disable it.
I also just started playing again and i love bf 3.
But i hope we get a bad company 3 next year actually or on next gen consoles.
I want B company back. And my Tyranno saurus monster truck defeating evil russian invading us of a. Bad company can actually afford to do that kind of stuff because its not serious.
Its more tropical thunder instead of battlefield 3 Black Hawk down.
Metalmurphy
Member
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=39502023&postcount=42
BC2 - Each wall has ONE destruction point, most buildings crumble after a set amount of holes are done.
BF3 - Each wall has multiple destruction points, and have more detailed destruction and debris, few buildings crumble due to design choice, some buildings can be completely obliterated (don't actually crumble but you can destroy each point till there's nothing left)
And then theres CQC. So yeah, I'm not insane, I just don't look at things in black and white. Just because most buildings don't go down doesn't mean it has a worst destruction model, it doesn't.
Spectacular Dr Dawg
Member
So the genre hasn't hit rock bottom yet? Next gen FPS will be even worse? Awesome.
Battlefield 3 is great, definitely one of my favorites from the entire series (I've been playing since the very beginning). It has the best hit-detection out of all Battlefield games (and some of the best hit-detection period among online FPS in general). I love the gunplay and the smaller emphasis on destruction, maps remain playable for their entirety instead of turning into a big flat plain by the end.
It's nice.
It's nice.
IceDoesntHelp
Banned
I guess you forgot about the Uncharted series?
Neuromancer
Member
There are some innovators (in gameplay, not eye candy) but DICE isn't one of them. Not anymore anyway.
Net_Wrecker
Member
The further shooters can move away from super linear rollercoater game design, the better it'll be. Most shooters actually have really bland gunplay so they just stuff the game with scripted moments where the player isn't in control, QTE's to make kEwL MoMeNtS, explosions everywhere, cutscenes everywhere, bad pacing (an NO, "pacing" doesn't mean "forced walking segments"), cliche turret / vehicle sections, etc. etc. There no games trying to be the next Half Life 2, or Resident Evil 4, or F.E.A.R.. Instead, everything just wants to ape Call of Duty which is the most limiting, boring, artificial kind of campaign design possible.
Battlefield online is a different beast though, and I'm sure better tech DOES help in that area. It's very wide with a ton of options. The problem is that they poured lawd knows how much money into marketing a single player campaign that was so riddle with the issues I've mentioned that I can't believe the two modes come from the same development studio.
Battlefield online is a different beast though, and I'm sure better tech DOES help in that area. It's very wide with a ton of options. The problem is that they poured lawd knows how much money into marketing a single player campaign that was so riddle with the issues I've mentioned that I can't believe the two modes come from the same development studio.
nextgeneration
Member
Mimic the gunplay in F.E.A.R.
SomeOneInaHat
Member
No guns
I'm not sure what this would end up like, but I'll buy three copies of it!
As for the topic, all I can add is that whatever it is FPS studios are doing now, I don't care one iota for. CoD and it's gated, infinite spawning AI is the bodgiest and laziest fucking design in all of gaming. The MP elicits a meh in the extreme from me. And since recent BF have copied that design to the letter, I couldn't give a shit for them either for the same reasons.
That's not to say the games are bad, but instead that I have taken the road less travelled while they headed down some major highway and lost me.
Black_Stride
do not tempt fate do not contrain Wonder Woman's thighs do not do not
I think more people would vote for DICE to work on multiplayer and fuck singleplayer right off the map.
Im more than willing to buy an MP game which has no SP whatsoever if it means the MP will be of higher quality.
P.S Have you played Spec Ops: The Line??
Bad Company was the first DICE game ever made soooooo.........
What have DICE said about their engine...i find it hard to believe a studio is allowed to make its own engine ends up makiing an engine they have trouble working with.....wouldnt the idea be that their engineers would literally know the ins out outs of the engine?
Or was the FrostBite engine developed with another company???
IF Bioware is making the game it will be ugly as fuck on PC.
The engine wont make the game suddenly look amazing, UE3, CE3, Frostbite are all capable of producing insane graphic levels, its up to the studios to actually realize it.
UE3 is a damn good engine, yet Mass Effect 3 on PC with "details on Ultra" looks like shit....so even if we swapped engines to Frostbite Bioware would still make the game look like shit.
Silly.Mikey
Banned
Man, i was playing BF3 today and the more i play it, the less i wanna go back to it. Its really too bad. Its just so inconsistent throughout. I get into a match (the one on the docks where one team spawn on a boat and the other on land), the match was halfway through and i get in, my team is getting completely destroyed, we have 2 puny boats and choppers that no one knows how to use, so they're just sitting there. The other team has 2-3 tanks near the water just shooting the boats as they're coming in, choppers in the air......getting massacred. And somehow, im supposed to have fun playing this...
Its a damn shame cause i really wanted to like this game.
More realization of technology to reduce the FPS stagnation? What the hell? We have games that utilize far, far less tech, yet are not shitty, stagnate FPS titles. The reason FPS genre is stagnate is because the player-base keeps buying into that overused shit. A product that makes money leads to more of that product. It's a business issue, DICE, and I'm sure (hopeful) that your team realizes this. It's not a tech issue, as clearly demonstrated by some of your engine's recent games.
You don't need more tech to make great games. You need to make great games with the tech you already have, so people buy it and expect more great games. Take that risk. Of course, tech increases the possibilities and potential of games, but that's all it does. It's only a tool. You can make a game that looks beautiful and isn't a shitty CoD-style FPS, and you don't need more tech to do this--it's an added benefit. More tech won't simply solve the problem, as DICE is implying here. You have to introduce the market to new experiences first, hype the shit out of it, hope it sells well, and then continue to innovate if it does sell well. But of course, as long as the minute-risk strategy works exceedingly well in the gaming industry, things won't change much for the FPS genre.
You don't need more tech to make great games. You need to make great games with the tech you already have, so people buy it and expect more great games. Take that risk. Of course, tech increases the possibilities and potential of games, but that's all it does. It's only a tool. You can make a game that looks beautiful and isn't a shitty CoD-style FPS, and you don't need more tech to do this--it's an added benefit. More tech won't simply solve the problem, as DICE is implying here. You have to introduce the market to new experiences first, hype the shit out of it, hope it sells well, and then continue to innovate if it does sell well. But of course, as long as the minute-risk strategy works exceedingly well in the gaming industry, things won't change much for the FPS genre.
I agree technology is important, but worthwhile technology, like support for huge streaming levels and open worlds. Not lens flares. I feel like shooting out every light in BF3 because of how bad the lens flare and cam dirt looks.
Epic were eager to demonstrate the dynamic lens flare stuff from UE4 too..
Epic were eager to demonstrate the dynamic lens flare stuff from UE4 too..
Legato.Reborn-
Member
I do love me some BF but I agree with Sethos.
The hit detection is just awful.
The hit detection is just awful.