A torrent of new Battlefield 3 details have come surging onto the web.
Retail listings have already leaked a whole load of information about the new game, including the fact it will feature battles in Paris, Tehran and New York.
The Game Informer website also reported on 64 player multiplayer for PC, but BestBuy says console multiplayer will support only 24 players.
Here's what they scribbled down:
- Aiming for CY Q4 2011 release
- Concept for BF3 has been in the works for years, waiting on proper tech to seamlessly come together
- Frosbite 2.0 is the culmination of this tech, entirely re-written
- Lighting sounds neat, one "probe" contains more lighting information than an entire BFBC2 level.
- Level destruction is going to be "believable" but basically everything is destructible.
- Character animations powered by ANT, what EA Sports uses.
- AI characters and multiplayer characters have different animation sets
- No more "gliding" animations that look off, animation realism is a focus
- Captured their own war audios (bullets, tanks, helicopters, etc) at different distances to ensure realism
- Better audio cues for certain actions, more easily able to listen for threats
- Plan on better, more immediate post release content
- More unlocks than BFBC2
- Dice trying to find a good balance between customization of your character and not having "pink rabbit hat(s)"
- 4 classes
- Will talk about squads "later"
- Looking into a theater mode but can't talk about it
- Will have co-op
- There will be a kill-cam but it can be turned off
- BF3's team is almost twice as big as the team for BFBC2
- They want the pacing of the single player mode to be balanced, with highs and lows. Makes the comparison to a song vs a guitar solo.
- Part of the single player mode takes place in Sulaymaniyah - Iraqi Kurdistan.
- "F***" will be used often, so M rated for sure
- There will be an earthquake in a level. The destruction sounds very impressive. 7 story building collapses, looks very well done
- Significant narrative that goes with the SP mode
- More than one setting, you're not in the middle east for the whole game
- PC version is lead version
- Why 64 players for PC only? No complains from the console crowd.
- No mod tools at release. Maybe none down the line either. Frosbite 2.0 is complex and mods tools would have to be dumbed down, so does Dice really want to put their time to that or would it be better spent elsewhere?
- Original story, not based on Bad Company at all.
Good stuff. The first Battlefield 3 trailer revealed an autumn release for the game on Friday.
Developer DICE has since said it'll only kill off genre leader Call of Duty by doing something different.
Comments
50 comments so far...
Ninja Wolfman on 8 Feb '11 said:
Shame on the 24 player on 360 and PS3, now as Skyrim is coming out too this year do I go out and get myself a new PC Rig???, as I want to experience the 64 player craziness
altitude2k on 8 Feb '11 said:
Right...how to say this without coming across as a camping whore...
F*CKING KILL-CAM?!
Ok, I failed. But part of the skill of sniping in BF is finding a good hidey-hole, then moving when you're spotted. The enemy markers allow teams to work together to find where they're hiding. How's that going to work if it shows you where that person is?
I hate kill-cams - cheap CoD rubbish.
monty_79 on 8 Feb '11 said:
*shivers*
This sounds absolutely fantastic. In a bit of a pickle now as to whether to get the PC version or continue with the 360 version. The thought of 32 man teams and a fully destructable level sounds immense!
altitude2k on 8 Feb '11 said:
24 players was surprisingly busy on BF1943, but I was hoping for more in BF3. I have to say, though, that when I used to play BF2 and BF2142 on the PC the 64-player matches weren't all that fun. There were a lot of servers that capped the player limit to around 40 with the largest map variants, and those were about right. Was hoping for 32-players on the consoles
Gambini on 8 Feb '11 said:
Unfortunately, the COD hordes will no doubt invade BF3 for a while and they tend to know little about working as a team or indeed sniping with skill. They tend to find the farest and most obscure point in the map and camp for an entire game. For idiots like that, a kill-cam is sometimes necessary.
But as the info indicates it can be turned off, I expect there will be a "barebones" mode?
kaptainkiely on 8 Feb '11 said:
looking forward to this a lot. hopefully not long until we get to see some gameplay
deadlydanscott on 8 Feb '11 said:
Really pleased that DICE are using PC as lead platform, if that's true of course. BF2 is a brilliant game and I'm a fan of BC2 swell. I always used to go in for the 40 to 50 players on BF2 aswell as 64 on some maps was insane. Especially with some people so good on jets and choppers. Anyway I can't wait for this game. DICE will do us proud.
CrispyLog on 8 Feb '11 said:
Dirty camping whore
Well in Bad Company 2 they had a post-kill cam, where the camera followed your killer for a couple seconds. It was clever because it didn't show you where they were, but if you look at where they are aiming and the area around them you can have a good guess. I thought it was a good system but the only problem was that they'd know if you were staying there or moving somewhere else.
But anyway with kill-cam only the one guy whos dead knows where you are, and then you have 10seconds until he can respawn. So if you use that time wisely it shouldn't be a big problem. Plus, what are you doing sniping? Go capture the damn objectives !
ruley1979 on 8 Feb '11 said:
Just make a game that signals the end of actc**tavision monopoly on this genre of games, because there efforts with treyofs**ta are taking the p**s now. If people are too stupid to see this? I have handed the task to EA-DICE to make sure that people change there ways and stop buy that crap that ACT/TREY produce every 2 years
.
PEOPLE WAKE THE f**k AND STOP FEEDING THE FOOLS THAT ARE CREATING THAT s**t FOR THE PS3
.
monkeyd_93 on 8 Feb '11 said:
lol i only just realised the games title is battlefield 3, and not battlefield bad company 3
pmantis on 8 Feb '11 said:
Thank f**k for that. After the dross which was bc2's single player campaign they would be better off starting from scratch.
deadlydanscott on 8 Feb '11 said:
I think a few people who have only played Battlefield Bad Company on console may not realise the Battlefield series has been running for years on PC, with DICE behind it the whole time.
You can pick up BF2 now dead cheap off steam and it still plays brilliantly imo.
PS3_fannyboy on 8 Feb '11 said:
24 players?
Guess it's back to MAG then...
altitude2k on 8 Feb '11 said:
And BF2142. Properly underrated, that version. Titan mode is awesome.
altitude2k on 8 Feb '11 said:
Lots of players != good.
TheLastDodo on 8 Feb '11 said:
From what I understand BF2 maps are bigger than BFBC2's, can someone confirm this? I guess this will be the same with BF3 so the maps are just gonna look deserted on consoles. I know DICE are catering to the PC crowd this time around but I and millions more are likely going to suffer because we dont want/cant afford a top end PC, I understand it wont be possible on the PS3/360 to have 64 players but would it really hurt to make it up to 32 rather than 24? Just 8 more players?
CrispyLog on 8 Feb '11 said:
Everything about BF2142 was awesome. Squad leader was great, being able to put a spawning beacon for your squad to spawn on was brilliant. The titans themselves, flying round with some AA turrets and some big guns for raining the pain on people below. The 4 classes were perfect, especially combining sniper/recon/special ops into one versatile class. I never snipe, but being able to go invisible and sneak behind enemy lines to capture their furthest flag whilst C4ing their UAV/Artillery was brilliant, especially on a deadlock map like Fall of Berlin. EMP, escape pods. So many good points in 2142, seriously underrated. Waiting under a titan as it shield goes and jumping up in the escape pods from an APC and storming it like a hero never ever got old.
@ The Last Dodo
What happens is that the maps scale. So you could play the same map on 64 player, 48, 32 or 16 and the map would get smaller and the capture points would change. It won't be an issue, the only issue is that 24 players on consoles isn't that epic and means there won't be a commander or any real team direction again.
Very_Silver_Ownz on 8 Feb '11 said:
I was playing BFBC2 at my mates and the game was deserted. Huge maps and only a few people playing the game.
f*** it was slower then socom.
Imaduck on 8 Feb '11 said:
Can't wait. Also, too many players does not = good necessarily. It just makes it a rush to t try to squeeze out 1 kill before 1 of the other 50 players shoot you. Better smaller and tactical. Battlefield gets the balance right.
altitude2k on 8 Feb '11 said:
I think I need to fire up the old girl. I really miss that adrenaline-inducing (and yet utterly pointless) dash for the Titan's exit and the long parachute down once the core was blown!
TheLastDodo on 8 Feb '11 said:
Cheers CrispyLog, it'll be PS3 version for me, just hope nothing too meaningful is removed.
CrispyLog on 8 Feb '11 said:
Oh yeh, your squad nailing the core and then it goes up. Dodging past the last of the defenders in the hangar and then parachuting off as it all blows up and you get a medal for it. Also if you timed it right and went at the last moment you'd appear on the screen at the end with the Titan blowing up, and you descending to victory next to it
Why has no other game used a variation of Titan mode? Even without Titans you could use a base, or even a ship. The whole balancing act at the end of how many people to focus on the missiles or attacking the titan or defending your titan was a stroke of genius and games were won and lost based on the wrong choice of objective.
I actually fired it up on my newish laptop since my old PC died, and I kept getting kicked
I agree with Ninja Wolfman's first post, with this and Skyrim coming out I am really tempted to get a new PC rig for these two epic games.
lmimmfn on 8 Feb '11 said:
my rig is pretty upto date, i7 920@4Ghz, 9Gig ram, 7TB harddrive space, 6970 for gfx and 8800GT for physx, but ill slap in a new gfx card if needed for this because i want it running really well on my 3 screen setup, been 5 bloody years waiting for this( well about 3 before i started playing BF2 less )
TOKEN on 8 Feb '11 said:
NO NO NO NO I dont want 24 players,thats p**sed me off,ive got BC2 why do i want a rehash.
EA said 80 player servers<far fetched.
Homefront is 32 players,Dust 514 is going to be 88 players for consoles,sounds loike BF3 is in the works for next gen milkin the cash cow.
PS3_fannyboy on 8 Feb '11 said:
Personally, it makes a huge difference to me.
Some people have stated that MAG never feels "busier" than other shooters due to the 256 players being spread out across large maps - this is true of Domination perhaps. However, I love the option of being able to ditch a useless squad if necessary and start from a totally different spawn in a totally different area which is itself several times the size of the typical fps map.
Just feels unrealistic to be sniped several times by the same person as happens in most other shooters.
I also really like the sense of scale - bringing up the map and seeing yourself as just one of 256 little blue dots. Utterly epic in some of the new modes where you have 96 players trying to take one objective - 32 from each faction.
ffcoppolla on 8 Feb '11 said:
People stll play MAG?
altitude2k on 8 Feb '11 said:
At least enough to populate a game (apparently).
Netanel on 8 Feb '11 said:
"PC version is lead version"
THANK YOU DICE!!!!
i believe that decision came to be after they saw that most of their BC2 sales were on the PC and that Operation Hastings Challenge was won by the PC crowd by a very large margin!!!
BF is coming back home people! back to the PC!!!!
first day buy for me, tyvm!
Focker420 on 8 Feb '11 said:
*looks at MAG*
*looks at 360*
Thanks for screwing us PS3 users over. You may say more players isn't always better, but it'd be nice to still have the ability to.
richard99 on 8 Feb '11 said:
Anyone mind filling me in on why consoles aren't getting as many players?
I was going to get it on 360 to play with friends but I might have to reconsider.
altitude2k on 8 Feb '11 said:
Going to blame that on why Killzone 3 can only support 24 players as well?
It's not as if it's a proven fact that XBL can't handle that many players in a game, it's just that MAG is the only example of a game that DOES.
That's like saying it's a proven fact that Zipper are the only devs capable of creating a multiplayer game with 256 concurrent players on any console.
CrispyLog on 8 Feb '11 said:
Networking and power. I think they said they could fit more players in, but they'd have to sacrifice all the destruction or vehicles. If you have a choice I'd personally go for the PC, but the console experiences will be great as long as you don't mind a little voice in your head reminding you that you're not getting the full experience.
MattyR95 on 8 Feb '11 said:
More players doesn't always mean better. More lag and other issues etc and it'd probably be a bit cramped if the maps are a similar size to BC2's.
Focker420 on 8 Feb '11 said:
Thats not the case w/ KZ3 as the multiplayer runs at only 30% of the PS3's power. They cut the number down to 24 because it balanced the game out. They learned with KZ2 that 32 people chasing after 1 objective became too hectic. But I can safely assume BF3 will have just massive maps so players all bunching into one tiny spot won't be happening as often.
"It's not as if it's a proven fact that XBL can't handle that many players in a game, it's just that MAG is the only example of a game that DOES."
This also works both ways, It hasn't been proven that it can't happen, but it hasn't been proven that it can either. And yes I understand that BF3 hss destructible environments and vehicles but I guarantee the PS3 could handle more players than the 360. Simply because its got the extra processing power.
ricflair on 8 Feb '11 said:
It's more like lazy developers. I'm not a programmer, but surely it can't take that much extra work to increase the maps from 24 to 32 on PS3?
I know the cell can do more than the 360 processor in terms of physics and raw calculations, but what do you mean by KZ3 only uses 30% of the PS3's power?
KMakawa on 8 Feb '11 said:
They wont turn the player ratio up on the consoles purely due to strain on the servers and well the consoles are not a place for true large-number player matches.
For the individual who was talking about MAG, sorry but that is just wrong. The 360 is more then capable of playing MAG, or any game with that large player-count, but the resource needed within the server is just too high for them to be wanting to, and to be fair -- there is no need to.
ricflair on 8 Feb '11 said:
Well I just meant if it is possible on PS3 and not on 360, then you can't blame really blame the 360 for the developer's decision not to maximise the PS3 version.
altitude2k on 8 Feb '11 said:
Well that's a bit daft logic. The 360 can handle games with more than 256 AI characters on screen (N3 and Gears 2, for example), and a pure multiplayer game would require less processing because it doesn't need to cope with AI - all of that comes from other players. Power has nothing to do with it.
With the PC, EA don't need to supply much in the way of server power. These are outsourced to the likes of Jolt - 3rd party and community-funded game servers. Can't do that with XBL or PSN, so it's either P2P (not achievable on current home bandwidths for that many connections) or have official servers. It would be very expensive for EA to provide servers for that many people along with all their other games.
lmimmfn on 8 Feb '11 said:
eh? you do realise its a sandbox game whereby each player can be blowing something up etc. so how does 256 numpty AI characters compare to 24 players blowing stuff up and the physics involved?
If it was possible to have 64 players on console then it would be in the game, its stupid to think otherwise, chances are they'll up it to 32 players im guessing.
The other thing is everyone harping on about the player limit, the number of players equates to the size of the map which also requires more memory and what not( hence the relatively small maps in BC2 compared to BF2 ).
Focker420 on 8 Feb '11 said:
@altitude2k
Power has nothing to do with it?? Are you joking? There is a ton of processing power involved in multiplayer game. Physics, lighting, character animations, particle effects. All of these things are constantly being calculated as every single player is doing something different on the map. Add in destructible environments and it takes even more calculations. All of these calculations are done with the processors. This has everything to do with processing power. And its common knowledge the Cell processor is far more powerful than the 360's. Which in turn leads to higher capabilities. In this instance, more players at once.
Oh and Gears 2 has a level with 256 AI players all on screen at once?? Serious question cause I honestly don't know.
DRMoroe on 8 Feb '11 said:
Absolutely lovin the fact that the pc version is leading the pack. bout time some real love is shown for the original home of the fps
Malmo on 8 Feb '11 said:
hmm feel a bit short changed on console still being limited to 24 players, i mean if you can get servers capable of running 64 on pc, why is it still so difficult doing the same on console? at least 32 players perhaps?
I used to be a big PC gamer but not so much these days, i've not played a competitive online shooter on pc in years and i'm unlikely to have the time to play that much so i'll just get my ass handed to me on pc. with consoles i'm a good player, not brilliant but good, so the ps3 is generally my port of call for gaming nowadays, but seriously, still limited to 24?
If DICE's reasoning was that people weren't complaining, well no offence but they shouldn't have to complain to expect some progress. And you can't seriously think complaints won't roll in once you've told the community that the pc will have 64 player games and the consoles are stuck 24. I really enjoy BC2 but i really do miss the scale that BF2 had back in the day.
lmimmfn on 8 Feb '11 said:
cmon if you played BF2 when it came out and it brought all mid range pc's to a grinding halt then you should know why 64 players wont work on consoles. PC's according to Mr. Moore are x2 faster every 2 years, that means gfx and gpu power, now last i checked the 360 is 5 years old and whatever the PS3 is which means high end PC's are 4-5 times faster now, in fact seeing as i can play ports at about 5 times the resolution with higher settings and AA i would say its even more than that.
Understand your consoles are getting old, things are moving on and if games take advantage of it then its better because it means the next gen of consoles will actually get games that are pushing it from what you see now as opposed to the $hit we've had on PC for years of direct ports and no evolution of gameplay to take advantage of the hardware.
AegisK on 9 Feb '11 said:
The uber large maps are going to be pretty lonely on consoles...
Dave_25 on 9 Feb '11 said:
"Thank f**k for that. After the dross which was bc2's single player campaign they would be better off starting from scratch."
Um Battlefield 3 is a sequel to Battlefield 2 which came out before Bad Company...
altitude2k on 9 Feb '11 said:
The physics and other calculations cannot possibly be recomputed for all 256 players on each and every client machine....that's crazytalk! You're saying that when someone knocks a glass window out, that everybody's machine calculates the same job rather than just seeing the results? A very inefficient (and unreliable) way of doing things! This is either something that's shared between the clients (your actions and the effects of those actions calculated on your machine, then distributed via the host) or just managed by the server.
And as for lighting, well that's the same. Except for maybe larger sources like explosions. But generally you don't get full ray-tracing in multiplayer games anyway for this exact reason, and resort to a localised representation of shadow. Not even MAG can cope with that sort of detail that casts character shadows over all players and entities.
The UE3.5 had crowd rendering. You can see in the second level - all killable NPCs too.
PS3_fannyboy on 9 Feb '11 said:
Yes! It's really hard to believe that people would play a game that's been out for a whole year, isn't it!
I'm told some people still play this game called Counterstrike that's been out for almost a decade! They must be lying though surely...
PS3_fannyboy on 9 Feb '11 said:
...and regards the comment that "it's not as if it's a proven fact that XBL can't handle that many players in a game, it's just that MAG is the only example of a game that DOES."
Well, it's certainly not proven but the devs of MAG stated that the game was in no way possible on the 360 due to the immense amount of processing required to facilitate 256 players...
I think the 360 has as decent a graphics processor as the PS3 give or take a few particularities on each side. However, it's the processing dept that lets it down and makes games like this and Uncharted a most unfortunate impossibility.
the elz on 10 Feb '11 said:
I dont like kill cams either.
if someones camping, avoid/hunt them down. with no kill kam, people running about like idiots tend to die a lot (bit like real life really)
I like the realism of Bad co 2/vietnam & slower pace compared to cod.
cod is like an episode of Benny Hill with guns.
Cryotek on 13 Mar '11 said:
PS3 fanboys are so dumb, they think the Cell is a magic lamp that can do anything if only developers would stroke it the right way...
The Cell processor is bottlenecked by the PS3's crap video card, and it has the same RAM bottleneck as the 360. When they say a game "only uses 30% of the PS3's power" you should read that as "we maxed out the ram and video card and were left with nothing for the Cell to do but spin its wheels 70% of the time."
The PS3 is not any better than the 360. It's a poorly balanced system and a pita to program for and Sony pays the price for those bad design decisions.