"Everyone wants there to be a fight between us - and I understand that - but the problem is that if you say it's 'a fight' you're assuming you're competing at the same sport."
So says Patrick Bach, executive producer on Battlefield 3. We're sitting in DICE's gorgeous Stockholm HQ for an exclusive interview, and he's not afraid to offer his candid thoughts on the rivalry with Modern Warfare 3.
"We have so many things in our game that aren't a part of Modern Warfare, so it really comes down to personal preference," he says. "You choose based on the depth you want, the maturity level, your own personal taste... it's all about how you get your fix. We're building the game we want to play, and there are a lot of Battlefield fans who agree with us."
Unsurprisingly, Bach isn't phased by our Call Of Duty prods. It's a subject he's accustomed to talking about; he even seems to relish it. Furthermore, having sat down and played BF3's multi-player just before our interview, we can understand why he's so full of confidence. It's brilliant. It's no secret PSM3 has backed Battlefield in the past. For many, Bad Company 2 remains the best online shooter available; its smart mix of team-based play, pure shooting, vehicle combat and widespread destruction has enchanted those brave (or knowledgeable) enough to sample it over Call Of Duty's safer, more linear option. Why are we telling you this?
Because, in many ways Battlefield 3 is more of the same. There are tweaks and improvements to the overall formula, and it's all set within a new game engine - Frostbite 2 - that makes it look stunning, but the core Battlefield experience stays the same.
LAST TANGO IN PARIS
Before speaking to Bach - and later Lars Gustavsson, the multi-player lead - we sit down for a few games of Rush. For the uninitiated, Rush asks you to destroy a series of objectives: blow up the M-COM stations in the first part of the map, for instance, and you open up the next phase. Rinse and repeat until the attackers have destroyed all their objectives, or the defenders have shot/blown/stabbed up all the attacking team's respawn tickets.
Flowers patch the park with colour, the water shimmers and, in the distance, the Eiffel Tower looms over that historic Parisian skyline. It almost seems a shame to smash the place up. The first thing Battlefield veterans will notice is that the spawn/respawn screen has changed. You can now swap between classes on that one screen, so there's no need to back out to fiddle with kit. It's a streamlining exercise, but anything that gets us into the fight quicker works for us. More significant change comes with new classes.
Comments
45 comments so far...
metallicorphan on 20 Jul '11 said:
as long as you are not female,i have heard what it means if a 'woman' has massive hands
TheMid on 20 Jul '11 said:
I am very excited by this! Really cannot wait, love the 'Rush'... Time for planning at the spawn and twitchier than COD at the sharp end (if you want to play it that way - the beauty is in the choice!) Suppression sounds as if it will add a new level of realism to the tactics as well... If I had a tail I'd be chasing it!!!
Red Deer01 on 20 Jul '11 said:
Kudos
Best preview article i've probably read. Loving the description and metaphors, makes me feel as if i was there. Especially for the area's i have yet to see, such as the last section of the Operation Metro map (the financial district).
Now lets just hope this game gains even more hype to get the sales it deserves.
monkeyd_93 on 20 Jul '11 said:
great article, it sounds like BC2...on freaking steroids. My only gripe though has to be tanks regenerating health (i'd assume it wont be present in HC), as they are bad enough trying to take out when someone who has hundreds of hours experience is at the wheel. It does allow occupants to be any class, but i can't help but think despite the realism aspects they are putting into it to make it spectacular, that regenerating tanks doesn't fit in at all.
Augustus_aka_AG on 20 Jul '11 said:
This just gave me a fizzing sensation in my Penis.
Idgaf on 20 Jul '11 said:
Massive? one map, one game mode? How does it compare to BF2 instead of BF:BC2?
ingy on 20 Jul '11 said:
Did i read somewhere that the destruction in B3 is gimped, ie buildings won't come down you can only destroy the facade?
stedwyer on 20 Jul '11 said:
Read the article -
"This destruction isn't just for show - you can remove the entire frontage from all the buildings at the end of the Paris stage."
It's amazing the way people only skim things nowadays. This game sounds amazing.
chunkyboymania on 20 Jul '11 said:
I can't wait for this bad boy.... might book a day or two off work on release.
ingy on 20 Jul '11 said:
So i was right,....defensive much.
scorpa23 on 20 Jul '11 said:
I think its probably for the best.
There will still be buildings that are fully destructible on the bigger open maps I would say (similar to destruction seen in BC2), but can you imagine a map like Karkand with full destruction? I think it would be silly if you could take down every single building in the heavy urban maps that BF3 will have (which BC2 lacked). And these aren't just the s**tty little houses, these are big buildings.
That's just my opinion anyway.
_Marty_ on 20 Jul '11 said:
A couple of things bother me about BF3, and this is one of them. Bringing down a building was brilliant, and really changed the landscape. Only taking out the frontage is weak.. Hope this isn't right.
Second is the removal of the medic class. I liked them a lot, and never felt like I couldn't compliment my squad with a gun as well as any other class. And why give the person receving the rez a choice - would they have a chouce if it was really happening? 'Bzztttt. Hey man, I was happy dead, put me back under!'
All that aside, I'm REALLY looking forward to this game. I have no doubt it will be amazing. I suspect his predication is accurate though - CoD will sell better, BF will be the better game... Sad.
TheMid on 20 Jul '11 said:
I've only played BFBC2 - most buildings can be pretty much flattened... I'd be disappointed if what you read is totally true sir. Bear in mind some maps are city based so would imagine the larger sky scraper type buildings will need more of a pounding (finar!) than the huts, farm houses and half built multi-storey car parks in BC2...
TheMid on 20 Jul '11 said:
Exactly!!
Sleepaphobic on 20 Jul '11 said:
Wow. Did you "skim" his question?
MPH on 20 Jul '11 said:
Change your washing powder. The cheap Asda's own brand gives me itchy cock.
clayf1ghter on 20 Jul '11 said:
I know this is a PSM3 preview but as another poster mentioned I wish these previews were compared to BF2 not BFBC2 as it is apparently the spiritual sucessor to the former. I loved BF2 but found BFBC2 to be pretty poor in comparison, although I'm sure I would have loved it had I not ever played BF2. Don't hate just my opinion
ingy on 20 Jul '11 said:
Why are you guys so defensive, are we not allowed to voice our concerns over the 'hallowed BF3'
Being a massive fan of battlefield of course i'm concerned over changes that seem to be a step backwards regarding destruction, and meddling with the classes which didn't seem to need it is a worry, anyway fingers crossed.
KK-Headcharge78 on 20 Jul '11 said:
Good preview chaps, lots of interesting additions. My excitement level is at 80% will need to see the Xbox version in action and some MP too to get the 100 but I think it's day one purchase for me. I am also delighted it ain't chasing COD's model, whats the point in having 2 games the same, I want to enjoy both for different reasons.
As your article predicts the outcome of this 'war', my thoughts are this; COD will sell a lot more (kind of obvious seeing the life cycles and marketing exposure) BF will slay COD in the single player experience, BF will offer a more interesting MP in terms of playing experience but overall COD will trump it's longevity due to it's high level of replay value, familiarity and 'pick up and play' mechanics. Also the new balance of perks in BF will be critical to MP.
As long as I'm still happy playing both in January then I'll have 2 winners
KK-Headcharge78 on 20 Jul '11 said:
It's not genral washing powder, I found out to my cost and felt rather dumb when it actually states on the packet; 'Not suitable for knob cheese removal'.
Ali_ on 20 Jul '11 said:
Dear Dice,
I love your games, I really do. But never, ever, ever make me do another Destruction 2.0 trophy again and we'll remain friends.
TheLastDodo on 20 Jul '11 said:
I've read about the "gimped" destruction in BF3 before this, from what I understood by it, it will be like an upgrade of BFBC2 (where you could take out small buildings pretty much completely but not even damage bigger buildings) whereas in BF3 you'll be able to severely damage bigger buildings but not take them down completely.
ingy on 20 Jul '11 said:
Did you mean in BF3 you'll be able to severely damage bigger buildings but NOT take them down completely?
If so that's fine, larger buildings should keep their shell, if not the whole battlefield ends up flat, from what you're saying then it's pretty much the same as Bad Co'.
Idgaf on 20 Jul '11 said:
Destruction is one of those elements that need to be carefully balanced. Not enough of it and it feels like a useless feature, to much of it will destroy a map. I can see the larger buildings not being fully destroyable being just fine. What would be the point of having the buildings on the map if you can just take all of them down?
What was described in the article is just from one map, so it is hard to say how it will play out in other maps. The idea that falling rubble sounds interesting to me and adds a new tactic to a rich game. A good question would be, does that rubble collect at the base of the building or does it disappear after a short time? A New York map would be interesting if you could pull down the face of the buildings to create cover for yourself as you moved down the street. Another way would be to create choke points to funnel vehicles into.
KK-Headcharge78 on 20 Jul '11 said:
Yeah bigger buldings are no good if you can flatten them, it's neither realistic or conducive to enjoyment.
TheLastDodo on 20 Jul '11 said:
Yes thats what I meant, apologies for the error. I'll go edit my last post.
master warrior on 20 Jul '11 said:
If they can increase the pacing of the MP to be more on par with the unbeatable COD pace then they are going to improve massively.
I still think though that COD will sell more due to the fact that it has staying power what other games keep their fanbase for as long as COD, try playing MOH now compared to Black Ops the number difference is insane and there is a reason for this people love COD and seeing as MW3 looks like another improvement with not much innovation i cannot see past COD being the better game and the better seller.
Deinsleaf on 20 Jul '11 said:
It would be a nice feature if everything would be destructible. But that would suck in a gunfight. No cover? Damn. Everyone's gonna die when they're reloading. The only hope you'll have is that you have good and considerate teammates.
REALTALK1987 on 20 Jul '11 said:
I wish they would show us some freaking video ( not recording off a tv crap) & some 360 footage as well. I hope both consoles get the same treatment, I've already pre ordered the ps3 version already but I man do I wish I could get those PC graphics though oh well. Can't f**king wait! REAL TALK
TheLastDodo on 20 Jul '11 said:
MoH was never a popular multiplayer game for many reasons (on PS3 at least).
Everyone played as sniper because sniper rifles were way overpowered.
Lots of people had connection and lag issues. Nowhere near enough content, 4 modes with 3-4 maps per mode, then EA had the cheek to ask for 8 quid for DLC containing a new mode and a couple of maps that should've been in the game in the first place.
As far as Black Ops and MoH (on PS3 goes), I'd say both sets of players were dealt a crap hand but only one set decided they weren't gonna put up with the crap they'd been dealt.
A better comparison seeing as though it's a BF preview would be to look at BFBC2, which was released last March (eight months before Black Ops) and is still really popular to this day, you never have trouble finding a full game in BFBC2.
revdogma on 20 Jul '11 said:
How come no one asked about battle theater? i loved it in battlefield 2 and i thought the only reason it wasn't in the BFBC series was because of the limits of the consoles. Then halo did it, and with the inclusion of battle log .. i hope they bring back this awesome feature.
Battlefield more so then any other game should have a match recording system for the simple fact that the action is just out of control.
Well here's hoping!
Raptor117 on 20 Jul '11 said:
I think it's because the map is an urban map with big apartments and tall buildings. Surely those would be a bit tougher to destroy especially in Rush where you spent most of your time either attacking the M-com or defending it. This is not the BC2 maps with a number of sprawling single- and two-storey houses waiting to be noob tubed. Any player getting hold of an APC and spent the whole game trying to bring down an apartment block instead of backing up his attacking team mates would find himself kicked in seconds.
Then again I might be wrong and they really have gimped the destruction.
I was hoping for a solid debris destruction. The destruction in BC2 looked a lot like cookies being punched with a baseball: wall explodes, bits flying off in a shower of smoke and dust, bits disappearing before even touching the ground......not very realistic. If the debris in BF3 can kill you hopefully it can also be used as a cover too. Several times in BC2 I have trees fell on me and covered me in leaves, hiding me from the enemies. Unfortunately their existence last mere seconds before disappearing. Like vehicle wreckage.
Cryotek on 21 Jul '11 said:
They forced you to play the PS3 version for the preview instead of the PC version? How disappointing.
kakah on 21 Jul '11 said:
Great Preview...finally, this is how a preview is meant to be!
BF3 4 Life on 21 Jul '11 said:
What about the Xbox 360? I'm sure its just as good
TheLastDodo on 21 Jul '11 said:
You hold onto that thought, I'll remember why Crytek went quiet on the PS3 version of Crysis 2.
the688 on 22 Jul '11 said:
Hmm.. if the console gamers aren't all complete newcomers to gaming, surely they'll know that the Battlefield franchise constantly delivers solid gold multiplayer - they bloody almost invented it, with Codename Eagle, and then the first BF 1942.
I can't see DICE having *any* problems with sales on PC - where Modern Warfare feels like what it is. Designed for consoles. Small, fast, confined, linear. Fun, sure, but not even compared to BF1942, which is decades older than MW.
BF3 4 Life on 22 Jul '11 said:
I hope it will look the same on Xbox 360. It probably will. I also hope that the console games have the same feeling as the PC game, same guns, player actions, knifing, etc.
TheLastDodo on 22 Jul '11 said:
I hope so too, it's not fair when either side gets an inferior version due to lazy developers.
BF3 4 Life on 22 Jul '11 said:
Yea but knowing EA and DICE they will not fail the console gamers, although right now they might be
in the end, it will be great
Steven Beall on 22 Jul '11 said:
'Gimped' destruction is fine for the simple reason that if you could destroy everything on the battlefield there would be absolutely no cover to speak of. Good enough for me!
Question: will there ever be any Xbox 360 footage? I am a PS3 gamer, but if I were a 360 owner I would be very, very concerned at the lack of preview code! Maybe another Portal 2 where one version (PS3) is a near-equivalent to the PC version and the other (360) is inferior in almost every single way imaginable?
xdeathknightx on 22 Jul '11 said:
Not too bothered about not every building being totally destructable. Big buildings should take a lot of punishment before they should go down, so if you can destroy most of it but it's skeleton still there I wouldn't mind too much. Especially in Rush, where the first round in BFBC2 mostly consisted of the whole enemy team being snipers and calling in mortar strike after mortar strike, killing the buildings instead of setting off the m-com points making it too easy.
gusone on 22 Jul '11 said:
The Steam EAOriginBoycott group
This is genuine attempt at creating a Steam EA Origin Boycott Group. Please join if you, like me, feel incredibly aggrieved by EA’s Battlefield 3 boycott on Valve’s Steam platform. Personally I find the bully boy EA tactics appalling especially after Steam saved PC gaming. This is about a massive corporation muscling in, stealing market share and leveraging off the millions of dollars Valve has invested in Steam over the last five years.
It is not so much the fact that Origin is yet another gaming platform it is the fact that we are being forced to use it to play Battlefield 3 if you want a digital version. This is a big deal but PC Gamers do have a large voice especially since Battlefield games sell more on PCs than consoles – so we should use it. Steam is the premier platform but it’s not a monopoly. You can buy digital games from a number of places. However, we all have 10’s or even 100’s of games on Steam and thanks to Steam we as a PC gaming community have been conditioned to accept digital downloads not to mention the friends social network is second to none. These are just two of the many reasons why we all love Steam.
Do you really think EA has PC Gamers interests at heart? … really? They’ve spent over $1.5bn on casual social games chasing the latest trend destroying massive shareholder value. They would ditch PC gaming in a minute as soon as it started making a loss while they continue to cosy up to Facebook - Bejeweled vs Zombiesville 9 is the future of PC Gaming right? Crysis 2 was pulled from Steam due to an exclusivity agreement with Direct2Drive breaching Steam's T&C's and then EA had the affront to sell it for even more on its own Origin platform. Furthermore the recently announced SWTOR Origin version has unique content (Star Wars: The Old Republic Digital Deluxe Edition) and cost $79.99 versus the packaged retail standard edition of $59.99... is this a joke? I'm not laughing and I’m not seeing the PC Gamer love and nor should you.
That’s not the way to do it. This is not the way PC Gamers work ... when did less become more? You all have an opportunity to tell EA “No. That’s not how it works. I don’t like what you are doing”. To be blunt if Steam is good enough for Activison’s Call of Duty franchise (whether you love it or hate it) then it’s good enough for Battlefield. And that’s the reality. The mighty Activision is still using Steam. Say’s a hell of a lot doesn’t it? The problem we have here is if other publishers start to do the same we're going to have 5+ platforms running - imagine having to log into 5 different social networks every day. Not to mention the stress on PCs running all these platforms in the background as they hoover up client usage data/stats and send it back to the marketing departments so that we get hammered with ads and spam. It’s a real possibility. Even today there is an article on a gaming website claiming that Steam EA game codes can be redeemed via Origin and that Origin loads the Steam overlay when you start the game (Dragon Age 2). This is just ridiculous. We just want Battlefield 3 on Steam. We have to say now… “Stop”.
Sadly, I fully expect Origin to be integrated into Battlefield 3 even in the packaged product so we cannot escape it even if you buy the disc - it's all about them capturing CRM data in their Nucleus database . All I can suggest is that you sign up to this boycott group (link below) and you pre-order the packaged version. At least don’t let EA have the extra profits and fatter margins that they would generate from a digital copy sold on Origin. .. $79.99 for a digital product really?
I’ll see you all on the Battlefield but this whole episode has left me deflated and not as excited as I should be to the forthcoming release of Battlefield 3. Bizarrely Modern Warfare 3 now has me more excited and that’s coming from a PC Gamer who has played every Battlefield game religiously since Battlefield 1942 came out a decade or so ago. And with Red Orchestra 2 out a month or two earlier Battlefield 3 already had its work cut out. The decision is being made easier by the day.
Me, I'm just a 40 year old PC gamer who is rather annoyed by all of this, yeah call me Victor Meldrew. But I really “don’t believe it”. DICE we love you… but EA… “Just stop” . Please tell your friends (friends of friends etc) and get them to join the group. It's time for some organised protest old school style . Everything starts off small but hopefully it will snowball into a PC Gamer movement that wants to speak up for PC Gamers. To make this happen please post the Steam Group link in any articles, blogs, Youtubes, twitters, Facebook etc about Battlefield 3. If you've the time then why not do it to other EA games. Let’s remind people we don’t have to accept this.
Remember it will not end here. Mass Effect 3 will be next. It's time to act... The PC Gamer community needs you all now.
The Steam EA Origin Boycott Group
Peace.
awconnor on 22 Jul '11 said:
I have spent a huge number of hours on BC2, and probably just as many on 2142. I loved them both immensely. I am greatly looking forward to BF3, frosty2 is impressive, the new co-op will have me and mates up to the small hours.. One thing I am missing though is any hint of any 2142 revival.. It was a amazing game and it's what got me hooked on the battlefield in the first place.. Titan warfare, hover tanks, moveable spawn points... Pure quality. 2142, I miss your futuristic thigh boots and pointy bra.
BF3 4 Life on 23 Jul '11 said:
I will be getting this game on console ( I can't afford a a PC to run this game
) But I'm sure when its all done and said and the game is on the shelves I'm sure it will be great