DICE Say BF3 Needs “Special Attention”

Speaking on the EA Forums, DICE designer Alan Kertz talks a bit about the consideration he has had to put into the PC version of Battlefield 3. He says that PC players are, like their machines, a little more demanding, and as such need extra work on DICE’s part. He explains that this will affect his work on the as-yet-unrevealed game: “It’s too early to talk BF3 specifics. But it’s never too early for me to acknowledge that PC players have a fear that BF3 will be “consolized.” PC gaming is alive and well, BFBC2 has proven that and no one at DICE or EA can argue with the numbers. Battlefield 3 needs an extra bit of special attention on the PC. I intend to give it that attention, tradition and our community demand it.”

I, for one, can’t wait to see those specifics.


  1. Alex Bakke says:

    There is some justice in the world after all.

    • Corrupt_Tiki says:

      unless it’s extra ‘pc-only achievements’ *shudders

  2. Heliocentric says:

    Mod support, freely deployable servers and no ‘always online drm’ and I’ll buy 2 copies near release. Fail any of those 3 and I’ll never buy it.

    • Senethro says:

      You’re objecting to always-online DRM on a multiplayer game?

    • llama says:

      If the DRM servers go down, you won’t be able to play, offline or online.

    • frymaster says:

      that’s funny, I won’t buy a multiplayer FPS WITHOUT that kind of system. Any idea how hard it is to ban griefers when they aren’t tied down to a unique ID?

      (valve definitely counts as always-on DRM, for multiplayer games anyway)

    • Heliocentric says:

      You cant play lan with always on drm, not really. sure in an ieal world a bunch of pc’s can share one connection.

      and getting dropped from a multiplayer match because a verification system had a pause for thought ubisoft style doesn’t seem so good either.

      also always on online drm which means you cant even play vs bots if the verification server breaks.

    • MDevonB says:

      Banning by CD-Key AND IP doesn’t work anymore? (Haven’t tried running a server in years.)

    • Mattressi says:

      Add to that a modifiable FoV and I might consider it. BFBC2 made me sick playing it. It was like walking around the house with my binoculars on!

    • pupsikaso says:

      What are you talking about? You could easily change fov in BFBC2 =/

  3. Batolemaeus says:

    Obligatory “bf1942 was still the best battlefield and the series should go back to its roots”-remark.

    • warth0g says:

      Seconded, but am I the only one that still has fond memories of flying choppers in BF Vietnam to a backdrop of ’60s sounds?

    • Alex Bakke says:

      You’re not the only one; the game played a great part in my formative years,

    • Heliocentric says:

      squads were critical to my enjoyment, still i learned out of that with project reality which offered player deployed spawn point fire bases (needs a commander order and troops to build it).

      But still, intimate control over where you spawn is important to stifle the effects of griefers, nothing quite like bring trapped on your only flag to ruin a game.

    • Alexander Norris says:

      2142 was better.

      Also, yes, if this “special attention” is like the “special attention” they gave BC2 (i.e. just upping the max playercount to 32 without designing any part of the game for those numbers and thus making shit if you play with any more than 24 players, which sort of negates the point of having 32-man servers in the first place), I think I’ll pass. I’m holding out for Homefront and Brink, personally.

    • DrGonzo says:

      I always thought 1942 was a bit pants. It was mostly running through fields being bored, then a plane or a tank blows you up from afar. Now BF2 is where it got fun for me.

  4. Simon Stirrat says:

    You’re complaining about ‘Always on DRM’ on what will probably be an online only game? Madness.

  5. clownst0pper says:

    What, like the inability to go prone being taken out because of consoles, but blamed on Snipers?

    Let’s reinstate that first, shall we? Then you really are thinking of PC players ;)

    • Nallen says:

      Removing prone improved Battlefield.

    • apsaps says:

      Prone was fucking stupid to begin with.

      It’s not used as a proper prone in the first games. It’s spammed together with the jump button in close combat. It’s fucking stupid.

    • subedii says:

      It doesn’t have anything to with console games, there are enough console FPS’s that allow prone as well.

      The removal of prone was a design decision, and a fundamentally good one. I’d put it up there with Valve removing grenades from Team Fortress 2. The (original) community loved to whine about that and how it was dumbing down the game, but it made the gameplay flow much better. As opposed to turning everything into grenade spam.

      To be honest, I often think that BFBC2 might have actually benefited from the removal for the Carl Gustav and 40mm nade for precisely those reasons as well, but that’s a separate issue I guess.

    • Alex Bakke says:

      Then remove the option to go prone while jumping, and include a delay when you use it normally?

    • subedii says:

      It’s not about dolphin diving, that’s easily fixed regardless.

      It’s about making sure the game pace isn’t dictated solely by snipers and people otherwise maintaining minute profiles. Gameplay that skews far more heavily towards camping.

      As it currently stands, the way the gameplay is designed is far more about motion and positioning, and grabbing impromptu cover where you can.

    • warth0g says:

      Or take it to its logical conclusion and just remove snipers altogether. It gets pretty tedious for the rest of us when 50% of your deaths came out of nowhere. Even more annoying when you’re failing to take an objective and realise that the reason why is that half your team are snipers..

    • subedii says:

      That one I’d disagree with. The class is called Recon, not Sniper, and they did that on purpose. The class role is actually fairly varied (just that most people TREAT it like only a sniper), a good offensive shotgun recon can be just as lethal as the stay-at-home type. Usually more useful to the team, especially when they’re making good use of motion sensors. They sniper still have their place and have an important role. It can be frustrating to be killed by one at range, but the game does show you where they were, and it helps to emphasise the need for cover. Or at least running forward as a ground so that some other guy can act as a meat-shield on the way. :P

      Sniping’s about (or ought to be most of the time anyway) flanking the enemy and getting odd angles on them to pick off heavy defence and allow your team to get to the objective.On that note, the best sniper / recons also do a LOT of spotting to let everyone know where the enemy is. They also do a lot of counter-sniping so that your team is free to advance without as much interference from enemy snipers (which is also why the Mortar strike comes in handy. Campers on hilltops tend to suffer badly from things like that).

      But yes it is irritating when most of your team mates decide that all they want to do is hide out in shrubbery and call down mortar strikes on things. Ultimately games like Battlefield (and really, any team based FPS) are best played with people you know and who are communicating. Then it’s brilliant.

    • subedii says:

      Running forward as a GROUP I should say.

    • warth0g says:

      Well argued, I just wish the game were actually like that. It’s blokes in bushes much of the time, and I can’t help but think that limiting the number of snipers per side to maybe 10% of your team would help a lot..

    • Shatners-Bassoon says:

      Dolphin diving should be easy to fix when your building tje game from scratch and as for countless Snipers? Well what ever happened to the limited kit numbers? Simple server side option.

    • Nick says:

      Prone was fine in 2142, the only problems with it were the insta accuracy you got from hitting the dirt, that was removed in 2142 so you were better off dropping to one knee for quick accuracy or going prone when under fire and moving to a safer spot/wait for aim to settle to take your shot, rather than proning in close quaters.

  6. clownst0pper says:

    Prone isn’t stupid, implementation of it was. Having the ability to jump and then hit prone was rife, but never fixed.

    Simply implementing a restriction on prone that you must be in contact with the ground, and crouching first would have removed this problem.

    The only thing it’s improved is being able to blow someones head off as they duck behind a fence or window as opposed to going prone..

    • John J. Rambo says:

      Prone naturally slows the game down, it allows for camping in ridiculous spots and favors static positions over maneuver. Having a low crouch a la Stalker would be a much better idea. It would allow the player to make use of small cover while preventing full on prone camping.

  7. Schaulustiger says:

    The PC version will be delayed for three months. buti t will have a slider to adjust mouse sensitivity. You heard it here first.

  8. Brumisator says:

    I won’t be the first or last one to call “bullshit” on this.
    I absolutely hated everything about BF:BC2, and only a very small part of me believes this PC-centric stuff isn’t just empty talk.

    • Alex Bakke says:

      The thing that’s made me there might actually be some truth in this, is the fact that he said “BFBC2 proved this”, suggesting that they were just testing the waters with BC2; testing a theory, getting feedback from PC players.

    • Nallen says:

      How on earth could you ‘absolutely hate’ BC2? It was great fun. If BC3 doesn’t have destructable buildings I will be a sad, sad panda.

    • Nallen says:


    • bob says:

      I’d like to see bigger maps make a re-appearance. BFBC2 is a good game and lots of fun but I can’t help feeling a little caged from time to time. While it might be true that bigger maps equal slower pacing I think they add a lot of atmosphere and immersive-ness to the experience. Maybe it’s just me and my nostalgia for the days when the Blood Eagles and Starwolf still roamed the huge maps of Tribes.
      Alas, it’s not gonna happen due to the memory limitations on consoles. Until now, I was naively expecting BF3 to be PC-only. As if.

    • suibhne says:

      Unless BF3 seriously overhauls the engine and its performance, I don’t look forward to large maps. In BC2, 32p servers perform markedly worse than 24p or smaller servers – particularly in the area of hitreg, which steadily degrades at the max player numbers. At least on the server side, the game simply can’t handle higher player numbers.

    • Brumisator says:

      In BF:BC2, the game mechanics are terrible. even if the building destruction was neat, it was a piece of candy wrapped in several layers of excrement.
      I won’t even go into the details, but a game where you can’t move properly (and I don’t mean details like going prone, I mean walk, run and aim) or hit the broad side of a barn with any weapon, really doesn’t deserve to be played.
      Maybe people got used to that on PC, after playing so many shitty console ports. But having played BF2 and Arma2 concurrently with BF:BC2, I was absolutely disgusted.

      This is pretty much what they intend to address with BF3, and I’m grateful, but the cynic in me feels an overwhelming sense of doom nevertheless.

    • FRIENDLYUNIT says:

      I find it alarming they had to come to a realisation. Like a rapist saying “Ahhh, not raping is good. I get it now.” No, raping is bad and game developers please release games you actually care about.

      Too late DICE guy. I bought BC2 and didn’t not feel the love at all. I’m skipping BF3 and might possibly buy 2143 if you ever make it, but only on sufferance.

      Because 2142 is a fantastic game even though the right hand side door gun on the EU transport VTOL is still bugged and does zero damage, after all these years.

  9. blargh says:

    I’ll believe it when I say it. Until then, I’m not biting.

  10. blargh says:

    SEE it dammit. I’ll believe it when I SEE it.

  11. neolith says:

    Before BF3 needs special attention, BF:BC2 needs some new maps, dammit. Seriously – how hard can it be?

    • suibhne says:

      DICE has said this will not happen. The new maps will be in Vietnam, period.

  12. Player1 says:

    Wow, so much marketing dirty talk pressed into about five sentences. I’m impressed… oh wait, not so much… *going back to playing Battlefield Vietnam*

  13. BooleanBob says:

    Lots of anger in this thread. Battlefield 2 was a great game! All they need to do is make a game that is better than Battlefield 2 and I think we’ll be ok.

    • Heliocentric says:

      But they are already lined up to pull features, how can it so easily match bf2 when core features have been removed?

  14. Marco Antonio says:

    Red Orchestra 2: heroes of stalingrad is the real Battlefield 3

    • Heliocentric says:

      Unless the arma team or the modders (project reality have a team on arma2) can turn ARMA2 into something more immediate i agree completely, i really cant see BF3 being anything but a failure. Still, i stand ready to be proven wrong Dice.

  15. bogie says:

    If DICE cannot be arsed to fix joystick support in BF:BC2 it does not bode well for BF3. They had also better release BF3 on PC first or else it will be a console port again.

  16. Dwergi says:

    Battlefield 1942 was THE game of my formative years. Every Battlefield since then has felt like less of the hilariously broken fun that was the first game. BC2 felt alright, but didn’t run very well on my PC.

    Though I remain thoroughly betrayed by BF1943 not coming out on PC – not happy at all.

  17. Nethlem says:

    I like how the news only quotes this somewhat positive part about the post while ignoring the rest of the real post. There are real gems in these like:

    “They tend to play only on PC, and they know their PCs have capabilities beyond that of a console. The gap is narrowing, but PCs still have a clear advantage in memory.”

    The gap is narrowing? How? Because sony added move and MS adds kinect? The gap is only narrowing when they release a new console gen, after that the gap is constantly whidening as console hardware stands still while PC hardware constantly moves on.

    Another thing:

    “Fundamentally I think it is an error to have different core gameplay on console vs PCs.”

    Why shouldn’t they? Tbh i would say that BF2 and BC2 have a VERY different core gameplay then consoles. Sure different games but in the end they show pretty well there the issue is… a PC gamer can live with having downtimes in his game, sneaking around a map for 20 minutes to ninja a capture point. While BC2 clearly had the “in your face! action all the time right when you spawn!” focus while basicly removing any options besides that due to too compact map sizes and limited tactical options.

    Sure there is alot of truth in that post, but in the end it reads too much as in “we want to cather to everyone, we know you want different stuff and everybody is gonna get what they like but the versions will be the same” which doesn’t really convince me because it isn’t as simple as that.

  18. Tei says:

    Theres already Bad Company has a consolized BF, so BF must be a PC-iced game. And that make sense.
    DICE can reuse the models of Bad Company, and re-enable the PC options, like modding, not-strings-attached dedicated servers, prone, jets, copters, lean, … and all these things you will not see in a console games often, because don’t fit the console format.

    I want my Battlefield feel Battlefield2-ish, and my Bad Company feel Bad Company-ish. I don’t want my Battlefield to feel Bad Company-ish.
    I could tolerate, and even enjoy, the fast random teleport fragfest of Bad Company, is a type of silly fun, but I want my serius Battlefield to be serius fun.

    Bad Company = Modern Warfare = Company Of Duty = Teleport fragfest.
    These games play like a small sack with 30 angry rats byting each another. Thats not the Battlefield pace, where is ok to stay in a AA station, forcing jets to stay away from the position. If you don’t like that pace, then BF is not for you, and you have a lot of other games to play, let BF be for BF players.

    • DrGonzo says:

      Not quite sure I understand this. BF2 is even more arcadey than Bad Company, people bunny hopping all over the place, doing loops in helicopters.

    • John J. Rambo says:

      Spawning on your teammates really emphasizes squad mechanics, and it means that the recon guy who is camping the enemies flank does more than rack up kills.

    • DrGonzo says:

      Is that what he’s referring to? Because that is in BF2.

  19. ARMLESScorps says:

    This is bullshit. I guess special attention is the same attention they gave to the pc version of BCBC2, which didnt work properly until at least 6 months after release (for me and others) and is still rather buggy and plagued by disconnects. The gameplay is great but I dont trust these guys anymore, im assuming EA rushed the game out the door. I almost never regret purchases but I kinda regret buying bfbc2, and none of the game sites helped (including this one), there was no mention of any of the bugs by RPS, why didnt the person writing the impressions on here check with other people playing on other machines?

  20. Spliter says:

    I’m gonna buy BF3 even if it’s only to support PC gaming.
    Still from the previous titles I’d say I’m gonna love it.
    I just wish they integrate those BF2 physics where you could fly you chopper upside-down and make all sorts of cool stuff with it.

  21. dotslash says:

    If they give so much attention to PC gamers as they claim to, why don’t I have my BC2 “All Weapon Bronze Stars” Insignia?!?

    Bloody consoles and a paid for DLC which just skinned some weapons…

  22. Joe Maley says:

    They can add all the mod, and dedicated server support in the world, but the game still won’t be good.
    MOH MP & BFBC2 have proven that the Frostbite Engine is garbage.

    Hit registration on BFBC2 is horrendous. Physics collisions are garbage. My character stutters everytime I crouch in a corner, or move to an object for cover.

    In BFBC2 my bullets lag by a noticeable amount, while in MOH they have masked this with client side hit detection – so almost every firefight, both me and the enemy end up dying.

    • DrGonzo says:

      I couldn’t agree more. It does feel like your playing online on a console. They are supposed to be dedicated servers but it feels like one of the players is the host.

      Also, the game is unplayable on anything other than a quad core. Why is it that games are no longer scalable? I can’t have the graphics looking bad and have the game run smoothly. Nowadays you can run it or your screwed.

    • Joe Maley says:

      Even on my i7-920 running at a stable 3.66MHz, it still is choppy. I agree the scaling is pretty garbage on recent games.

      But it is really in how they handle the networking code.
      Don’t get me wrong, the hit detection on BF2 was pretty terrible too.
      I didn’t notice it when I played it as a middle-schooler, but playing it again after many years and classes in computer programing (and networking), it’s clear that there are many technical problems.

      There appears to be terrible packet handling, interpolation timing, and prediction.
      But alas, none of that is noticeable when you are aiming with joysticks.

    • DrGonzo says:

      I think also, BC2 feels worse because there is such a delay. BF2 had bad hit detection but it didn’t take 2 or 3 seconds to respond to the bullet. BC2 does and it usually results in that weird situation where you both kill each other at the same time.

    • DiamondDog says:


      Unplayable? I must have been dreaming these past few months.

  23. coldwave says:

    Funny how after a few months with BFBC2 I had a nostalgia streak and decided to return in to BF2 of which I had very good memories and I just couldn’t play.

    Overcomplicated controls, ugly graphics, indestructible everything.

    And a playerbase full of people who know and use every glitch/exploit.

    Hell, even 2142 back in a day was fun despite regular pod-surf and spawnkillers stuck in buildings.

    But this I just can not tolerate, call me a casual or something.

  24. dethgar says:

    If Valve made a statement like this, everyone would be down on their knees and offering freebies.

    • Brumisator says:

      Valve don’t need to prove themselves as making games for PCs.
      they don’T need to fix their shit, they make PC games.

      Go troll somewhere else.

    • TheSquarePear says:

      L4D2 is NOT a PC game
      You can plug in a X360 controller and it switches instantly to accelerated view control.

      Plus Gabe Newell is so far up Sony’s ass that he’ll never see sunlight again.

  25. sereal says:

    Don’t forget working VOIP.

    Broken VOIP is just plain sad, and if BC2 wasn’t such a good game I would of stopped playing long ago.

  26. BobbleHat says:

    Isn’t the Frosbite 2 engine being built around DirextX11? Meaning that they’re effectively making two seperate games; one cut-down and built around DX9 for consoles, and the PC version which’ll be 10 and 11 only?

    Surely if they’re doing this then we don’t need to worry about hollow promises as it’ll be a true PC game. Or is this just messed up logic and wishful thinking?

  27. Aemony says:

    “PC gaming is alive and well, BFBC2 has proven that and no one at DICE or EA can argue with the numbers.”

    Thanks god at least one swedish game company says something positive about the PC gaming. Over at Massive it’s all “PIRACY IS KILLING OUR GAMES! WE’RE LOSING 90% OF OUR OTHERWISE INCOME!!!” and the like. Typical music industry marketing.

  28. Στέλιος says:

    They better keep the command and communication structure that BF2 had. I still play the thing from time to time, and I used to find it greatly fulfilling (and amusing) playing it sort of like an RTS albeit one where you had squads deciding to do whatever the hell they wanted even if you would tell them that there is a bunch of bastards in choppers coming their way to annihilate them and they were needed to dig in.

    Then again, doing donuts around an enemy flag with an FAV mowing people down or converting them to roadkill always had its allure…

  29. Nick says:

    What they need to do is make sure AA is effective (they managed this is BC2 at least) so Jets aren’t flown by 1 person with a 60/1 K/d ratio because the only person who can actually hurt them is another Jet and he is too busy raping spawns with immunity himself. They need to have prone with sensible accuracy reduction initially, no ability to fire whilst jumping, no anti personel mines (again, this worked fine in BC2), squads of up to 6, squad voip that actually works (still haven’t fixed this in BC2, disgraceful), either go the 2142 class way – Assault (able to become medic if he took defibs/med kit rather than other stuff), support (ammo and LMG), engineer (mines/anti vehicle, SMG) and recon (either carbine or sniper, not permanently ghili suited reguardless) or some other way, but not medics with LMGs and Assaults with ammo. Anti tank rocket launchers only, small blast radius, proper reload time.. like the BF2 ones.

    And a patch system that isn’t so stupid that it makes patching nearly impossible from their side.

    All of that and I’ll be a happy bunny. I’m not holding my breath.

  30. Orvidos says:

    “. . .PC gaming is alive and well, BFBC2 has proven this. . .”

    Other than the horrendous launch bugs, the mouse-smoothing, the server death for almost a month and the lack of prone or other similar BF2/1942 features, BC2 was an amazing PC launch!

    Oh, wait. . .

  31. Sardaukar says:

    Stick BF2142 in the Frostbite engine, keep prone but remove the ability to fire for a few seconds after doing so, reinstate proper aircraft, and that’s all I want out of BF3.

  32. henchman says:


    You can change the FOV in BC2 by going into your my documents/BFBC2 folder and edit the settings.ini

    All this could be avoided if they just gave us the console..

  33. Chris says:

    I can’t trust this. The money to be made is on consoles and the money men won’t want to spend the extra cash just to keep PC gamers happy no matter how good the intentions of the developers are. I don’t think we’ll ever see another BF 1942 styled game, I fear anymore iterations will be horridly gimped/stupified and PC gaming will suffer because consoles make more money.

  34. spacesubmarine says:

    They should set BF3 into warhammer 40K universe and make it more arcadey, there are tons of “realistic” multiplayer shooters, but where’s the fun that the late


    Jumping in buggies, scorching players with flamers, jetpacks, hacking, rocket barrages all the sweet stuff.

    Did I mention it should be set in a WARHAMMER 40K universe ?

  35. Dick says:

    But BFBC2 as a GAME was pure garbage, DICE.
    Only way to make BF3 is to not make a console version. Putting 64 players ir some poorly designed maps aint gonna work.