Field Music: Battlefield 3 Detailed, PC Is Win

Looking forward to having a screenshot of this one. Each time we post a logo a magazine's art department dies.

A poster on the ever-mighty NeoGAF forums has paraphrased the new details on Battlefield 3 from the new issue of Game Informer. There’s a lot here, but here’s the gem- the PC version is not only the lead version, it’ll boast the 64 player limit of Battlefield 2, while console versions of Battlefield 3 will only support 24 players. When was the last time a PC version of a AAA game had a benefit like that? Yikes.

Because I’m not above it, I’ll quote the NeoGAF post verbatim and bolded the important bits. Yeah, none of that purposeless rephrasing here.

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.
“Fuck” 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.

And in addition to the news nibble that Battlefield 3 will allow players to go prone, Best Buy has detailed that you’ll be able to “drag your fallen comrades to safety and mount your weapon on almost any terrain to defend them.”

This is all starting to sound very, very good to me. Dragging my comrades to safety in the middle of an earthquake while using “Fuck” often? Count me the fuck in.


  1. DSR says:

    So… Basically its like Battlefield 2… On the new engine… With coop?


    Where can I preorder it?

  2. Sam says:

    Sounds excellent.

  3. skinlo says:

    This actually sounds pretty awesome!

  4. jplayer01 says:

    Sounds great but … no mods? :(

  5. Callum says:

    Sounds great. I bought Bad Company 2 in the Xmas Steam Sale but haven’t really played it at all. I may have to jump into it soon before this comes out.

  6. Bluepixie says:

    I’ve sort of got fed up of shooting my fellow man in the face, but this is most exciting.

    Do you think bodies are mountable?

    • BattleMoose87 says:

      I’ve heard that you can mount weapons on all types of scenery. Does a dead body constitute ‘scenery’? Or maybe a pile of bodies would.

    • Heliocentric says:

      Do you think bodies are mountable?


    • Bennus says:


  7. Horza says:

    No word about commanders or squad leaders :(

    Hopefully they’ll be announced later.

    • Heliosicle says:

      I read scans of the GI article where they talked about commander mode, seems that because so few people ever got to use it in BF2 and they want this game to be as approachable as BC2 it won’t be making a return. Squad leaders may be on PC, but they seem to be in favour of having the same array of abilities available to everyone.

    • DigitalSignalX says:

      seems like a logical play with more people on each team.

    • Στέλιος says:

      BF2 had 64 player maps and the commander role was fantastic if you hit a team with squad leaders that would work with you.

  8. rupert says:

    when can we pre-order, sounds amazing

  9. Kakrafoon says:

    BF 3 sounds better and better. What a shame that a reimagining of Karkand in Frostbite 2.0 will be a DLC and not included in the original game. Well, maybe it is one of those VIP DLCs like the vehicle unlocks in BC2…

    • SprintJack says:

      IT’s not DLC, its for everyone who will preorder it or buy it at release.

    • Aldehyde says:

      From what I’ve read, it’s the very definition of a DLC. If you pre-order it, you get it at release. However, it will be available to buy a month after release.

    • Mehall says:

      Surely if you’re a big enough BF fan that you want Karkand, you’ll be buying on launch anyway?

  10. xcession says:

    It is a shame about the lack of mods, but I sometimes feel the mod scene is overrated anyway, I mean you could count the BF2 mods worth playing on the fingers of one hand, or less.

    Around the time of BF2142’s release, BF2, BF2142 and BF2:Project Reality were the triumvirate of games I played on any regular basis, but I tired of BF2 and BF2:PR equally as quickly and roughly at the same time. Although BF2:PR has gone to extraordinary lengths to be different to BF2 vanilla, it wasn’t the same as having a brand new game, it was more like adding a game mode to the existing one.

    The mod scene is probably more worth keeping for the groups of programmers and artists it creates, who go onto real jobs in gaming. Thats definitely not to be sniffed at.

    • Hides-His-Eyes says:

      I disagree with your conclusion there:

      -Most people play BF2 mods for months or years;

      -Project Reality mod is currently 5x the game BF2 ever was and still expanding. People are still buying BF2 just for access to that, which is what Arma2 could have been in my opinion.

    • Commisar says:

      Well, Frostbite is supposed to be ALOT more complex than the BF2 engine

  11. HeroJez says:

    I read something about only 4 classes. That sounds very Assault, Recon, Support and Spec Ops.

    Perhaps everyone has a med-pack this time? Also, I wonder if I’ll need to replace my GTX 260.

    • Mad Hamish says:

      I was initially disappointed that there was going to be only 4 classes. But the classes in BF2 were very rigid. These are going to be more customisable than the ones in BC2. And you BC2 with all he unlocks you can get at least two roles out of each class.

  12. cjlr says:

    What’s the deal with servers? And seriously, no mod support? I like how they didn’t rule it out, naturally, but I won’t hold my breath.

    The rest sounds pretty good, though. I will buy this.

    “Why 64 players for PC only? No complains from the console crowd.”
    That line makes me laugh.

    • squirrel says:

      They shouldn’t be proud of 64 player-multiplayer game, they should be ashamed.

      We are not asking for a virtual battlefield, but we are in 2011 already. If EA is concerned about the cost of running such powerful servers, they should reconsider charging USD40 since they dont deserve the USD50 price tag. Anyway suggests that PC version will be USD50. EA finally realizes that USD60 is just outrageously high for a PC game, huh?

    • Hallgrim says:

      @ Squirrel: I doubt that bandwidth and latency have improved much for the average user over the last 10 years. It’s still impossible to get fiber in most of the country, and I doubt that latency is that much better for those who have it.

      Network infrastructure is the reason we don’t have 300 vs. 300 fps games, not developer laziness.

    • Adriaan says:

      The Project Reality mod for BF2 is/has been testing 128 players per server, which is working fine so far latency wise. Issues are mostly FPS related due to a greater number of players and assets near the player than with 64 p. The thing I’m guessing is keeping BF3 back from having much more than 64 players per server is the destructional environment. 64 players -and- destructional environment is already quite a feat if you ask me, and it will probably be pretty bad-ass. If I could I’d choose a greater number of players over a smaller number of players + destructible terrain though.

    • Bhazor says:

      As MAG showed larger battles (250+) are possible. And a bit crap.

      Size isn’t everything. Give me a well balanced focused 32 on 32 match over a 300 man clusterfuck any day.

    • battles_atlas says:

      A three hundred man clusterfuck does sound pretty morish mind

    • drunkenpandaren says:

      Man I remember Tribes.

  13. Duffin says:

    I quite enjoyed no prone in BC2… no dolphin jumping.

    • Heliocentric says:

      *Slaps his flippers together while balancing a ball on his nose*

  14. coldvvvave says:

    I like unlock system of BF:BC2 and before people shout at me I’ll try to explain.

    In my opinion, there were no underpowered weapons in BF:BC2. Basic weapons are fine( hell, I think ASVAL and M24 are best class weapons ever) and I don’t even play on Hardcore servers where damage is x2. Several times Angry Internet Men suggested me to “Try going on servers populated by level 50 without unlocks” so I did create few accounts for testing this, and it was fine, actually it was great, because having only basic weapons makes you stick to team instead of going into “l33t 1pwNn00bz” mode. Also, most times I am killed it’s not because my weapon had less DPS. It’s always a sniper, or shot in the back, or heli, or grenade, or a bunch of guys. Some guns sure had to be tweaked but overall I think unlock system is fine. You get to choose weapon you actually enjoy using to shoot at men. You don’t really need to use M60 or Carl Gustav.

    • Mad Hamish says:

      Yeah I can’t complain about the unlock system at all. There are plenty of powerful weapons to choose from the get go. Mind you I had to play for quite a while before I unlocked my baby. G3 all the way.
      Also as you get better and unlock more weapons the different combinations allow you to step outside the initial rigid roles of each class and specialise for more specific tasks. It definitly adds longevity to the game.

    • squirrel says:

      Yeah, after having unlocked all assault weapon, I still appreciate the power of AEK94 in short range (and its super-cool iron-sight of course). The problem being, that the BC2 unlocking system experienced some major disruption from technical issues. Choice of different combination of weapons to suit different situation is vital for outcome of battles. Such technical issues, be them server overload or bugs or whatever, weaken my confidence for the upcoming Battlefield games. Anyway, I am still waiting for more info. from EA to make this purchasing decision. And I hope that BC2 didn’t just yield profit for EA (important of course, without profit DICE will not make any Battlefield game, I truly believe that commercial success of BC2 is well earned), but also invaluable experience for EA to plan for this major release to prepare for a good online plan.

      And I must say that the weapon system of BC2 is such a success. Bring it on, DICE.

  15. Juiceman says:

    I’m kinda interested in what they are doing with the single player mode. Will there be a story driven campaign like Bad Company or will it be like 1942/ Battlefield 2 where it’s just maps with bots? Regardless, I don’t have any worries about the outcome of this game. Dice has never failed to deliver something worth buying imo.

    • ScubaMonster says:

      I hope they don’t waste time with a campaign, and just focus on the real game. I’d be perfectly happy with just a map with bots anyway for single player.

      However, with it being on consoles too, they might feel obligated to include some sort of campaign.

    • mungmcgavin says:

      im here to remind you of medal of honor. not worth buying. judging by the way dice uses games to test ideas for future games im betting the co-op/ single player is similar to onslaught mode from bfbc2.

      this is my first post here ever i just relocated from that shit bag redesign at kotaku. i am still looking for a new site for my gaming news. im torn between rps and detructoid.

  16. Ysellian says:

    Ugh, I think I’m going to have to upgrade my pc by then. This game definitely sounds worth it!

  17. Njordsk says:

    No games matter anymore since this annoucement.

    That makes me somehow sad, fall is far away. Damn you DICE

  18. Fitzmogwai says:

    Let’s hope that if the PC is the lead platform, they’ve managed to code decent joystick support for vehicles (specifically aircraft) this time. I spent a vast proportion of my time flying transport choppers in BF2 (flying squads around, not kill-whoring with the blackhawk miniguns!), and about 5 minutes flying helis in BFBC2.

  19. Nemon says:


    • squirrel says:

      This f word is so nicely used in BC2, and I still dont understand why EA screwed it up in Medal of Honor.

      And they accept the M rating just for the permission to use f word in the game?!

  20. Njordsk says:

    There are game informers scan around the interweb, I don’t know RPS stance for that, so I won’t post anything, but it’s incredible and full of details

  21. kyrieee says:

    Quake on Earth? Sounds like QW:ET to me

  22. DoucheMullet says:

    “-No mod tools at release. Maybe none down the line either.”


    • Commisar says:

      it is because Frostbite is extremely complex. So if very few people can use the mod tools, are they even worth being released

  23. squirrel says:

    I just dont understand this. Why you make it sounds like we PC gamers are happy for the suffering of console gamers? It’s EA’s fault for failing to make a game good on all platforms. We dont want PC version of a game to be scaled down to accommodate the standard of console version, and that’s one thing. This does in no way imply that we want EA to scale down console version to give us a sense of superiority. It’s not a contest, damn it. And I am just so disappointed that I cannot play with my friends who have Playstation version of BC2. (And Playstation has its own set of mouse and special key-pad, so no unfairness of PC keyboard & mouse over Playstation.)

    • jackflash says:

      I enjoy it when console gamers suffer.

    • Sarlix says:

      “(And Playstation has its own set of mouse and special key-pad, so no unfairness of PC keyboard & mouse over Playstation.)”

      I thought this was a joke until I just looked it up.

      Well before long they are going to start moving their consoles off the floor and onto, I dunno a desk. And then they will probably move their keyboard and mouse up there for ease of use. And then think heck I may as well put my flat screen on there too. And what do you know, their sat there playing on a fecking PC!

    • Simon Dufour says:

      Thanks Sarlix. You made my day with that true statement. They’ll be playing on a PC with 256mb of RAM :D.

    • MD says:

      I’ve always wondered, what’s it like playing with a mouse + keyboard controller on a console? Do the games tend to support it well, or is it like playing a bad console port on PC, with un-turn-off-able acceleration, mouse-lag, etc.?

  24. rocketman71 says:

    Yadda yadda yadda. That’s no mod tools for sure. And very probably no public server files either.

    I have no trust in DICE anymore. Writing now a love letter to the PC after fucking us over 1943 & BC2 is way too late for me.

    • Commisar says:

      You are not missing much in 1943, and BFBC2 is a fun game, it is no BF2, but it wasn’t supposed to be

  25. alice says:

    – not having “pink rabbit hat(s)”

    I can see that TF2’s status as America’s #1 War-Themed Hat Simulator will continue to go unchallenged.

  26. A-Scale says:

    This is why I come to RPS. Good summary, plus some commentary.

  27. Kaira- says:

    Sounds like awful lot of hype, and incoming disappointment. Or maybe I’m just a cynic.

  28. Jimmy Z says:

    I’ve enjoyed most battlefield games thus far, however I’m seriously disappointed that the consolification that began in the Bad Company branch has now infected the PC branch as well.

    First of all. No mod support? I mean what the fuck, mods have been one of the primary things to keep the original ’42 and BF2 going *to this day*, Desert Combat in BF42 was better than the vanilla game in many ways and Project Reality has grown to be something quite unique and is still played quite actively. They are seriously shooting themselves in the leg with this one. And the bullshit about engine complexity is just that: bullshit and severe underestimation of the talent some of these mod guys possess. For ages modders have been able to pull off all sorts of crazy shit on engines that weren’t even designed to be moddable in the first place.

    And just four classes? Why the hell is that? The old classes of BF2 worked really, really well and actually enhanced and encouraged group play, when you needed more people to fill out all the roles in a functioning squad. Whereas in BFBC2 the best strategy is to just stack medics, because they can heal, revive AND happen to have the greatest firepower in the whole game. Dumb. Makes me think that we most definitely won’t see any of the finer squad leader/commander/tactics mechanics seen in BF2.

    And yes, 64 players definitely isn’t anything to write home about, especially since we saw 128 players in BF2 already (though this was achieved by those no good modders). Big, wild and brilliantly random battlefields have always been the staple of the whole series in my mind. I most definitely don’t want tight spaces, artificial choke points and small maps with low player numbers in a Battlefield game, there are games that do that shit better. Huge open maps with shitloads of players, vehicles and shit blowing up all around you all the time, all the while you’re pulling some crazy flanking rush to a flag with your buddies, that’s what Battlefield – games are all about for me.

    Oh well, it will probably turn out sort of decent in the end, even the console simpleton BFBC2 manages to be pretty entertaining even though it’s just a pale shadow of what the truly great Battlefield games have been. It’s just a shame how they have all the ingredients needed to make a truly mind blowing game, that the end result will probably be just something moderately lukewarm. Though given the lack of competition in this particular sub-genre of shooters, we’ll just have to make do with that.

    Also, who gives a fuck about single player in a Battlefield game?

    • Dave says:


    • DiamondDog says:

      @Jimmy Z

      I admit my memories of BF2 are hazy at best but I’m sure it had its fair share of smaller urban maps for smaller servers. This is before Battlefield was ‘infected’.

      You’re entitled to be disappointed, of course. It just seems you want a game designed to your own personal taste.

      Lots of people play these games. No doubt some of them enjoy the single-player experience and are happy to see it included.

    • Jimmy Z says:


      The really smart bit about Battlefield 2 was that it actually scaled maps according to the max player amout, so there was (at least) 32 and 64 player versions of the same maps. Might’ve been actually 16 player versions too, which were obviously much, much smaller portions of the full map and didn’t contain any vehicles. However each and every one of the 64 player maps were huge.

      I’m not saying that a tighter urban environment combat couldn’t be fun, it’s just that there are already dozens of games doing that (COD, MOH etc.). I’d much prefer if the Battlefield series played to their strengths and those, in my mind, are the large scale battles on big open maps with all sorts of vehicles thrown in the mix, all delivered with fun and accessibility in mind.

    • WildcardUK says:

      Has there been a suggestion that the 64 player maps will be smaller this time round? If there has I missed it. If there hasn’t then I’ll see what happens. Personally I’d be happy with a straight BF2 remake in the Frostbite 2.0 engine. That they’re making some other refinements is dandy with me.

      Shame about the mods, though I will admit I never played any mods on BF2 or BF2142 and was pretty happy with the vast amount of hours I had out of both.

      Also, fuck yeah!

    • Commisar says:

      @ Jimmy Z, well, I will be enjoying BF3 and in no way is is going to be “dumbed down” for consoles. Anyway, game companies go where the money is, an Piracy kinda sucks for game companies. If you want Project Reality, just get Arma 2, that is what they will be focusing on from now on. The Commander mode was rarely used in BF2, so DICE decided that it wasn’t worth implementing. Frostbite 2 is Alot more complex than the BF2 engine, BF2 came out in 2005 and BF3 is a 2011 game.

  29. kibayasu says:

    I think the interesting thing I took away from this is 24 vs 64. That is a massive difference. One that can’t exist (properly) without a similar massive difference in map size or design. Either that, or just shoving 64 players into a place they don’t belong. Of course, not all maps were made for 64 players in BF2 and 2142 either, but a lot of them could still handle it. But putting 24 players into a map the size of MInsk? Or… that port map, the one that was in the demo of BF2?

    Either the PC version is getting substantially increased map size in a few places or 64 players is just a bulletpoint on a game it shouldn’t be on.

    • Greg Wild says:

      They really need to bring back BF2’s playercount map sizing if it’s going to work.

      Also gives us PC folk the knowledge that we’re getting the “full” version.

    • Ludden says:

      That was my first thought as well. I really can’t see them making two different sets of maps though, e.g. one for the PC and one for the consoles, but maybe they’ll surprise me.

  30. Player1 says:

    For all those wanting mod support: we have seen how long it took teams to get decent mods for BF2 out the door (FH, USI, OPK, PR, etc.). Many of them never saw the light of the day or were abandoned after two or three versions (Pirates). I love mods and without a doubt they made BF42 and BFV much more enjoyable than the retail product, but i really think those times are over with the ever increasing complexity of modern engines. I don’t think there would be enough people around willing to learn to fiddle with the Frostbite 2 engine. And even if if some did, i guess it would take years to get a mod together. Sad but true.

    • Jimmy Z says:

      Yeah, surprisingly making practically a whole game on your free time takes a lot of time. Then again, if the core game is solid, it doesn’t really matter even if the good mods take years to come out. Look at Half-Life 2 for example: excellent mod support, great engine and new mods still keep coming, close to six years after its’ release and the creativity, scope and depth of some of the mods is nowhere short of mind boggling.

      Also, it really shouldn’t be a great surprise to anyone who’s ever paid to any attention the mod scene, that a vast majority of all mods started never get further than posting a couple of screenshots (usually featuring untextured weapons) and then fade away into obscurity. However, every once and a while something truly great comes along…

    • Mad Hamish says:

      I have no info to back this up or anything, but I suspect the big publishers like EA would have a thing or two to say about releasing modding tools for games. Wheather DICE wanted to release them for BF3 or not, I’d say EA had a hand in that decision. Games with huge lifespans that compete with official paid for DLC are not what large publishers want.
      I’d say they days of AAA games coming with mod tools are coming to any end. I was even pretty surprised when Bethesda said that modding tools were shipping with Skyrim.

    • Jimmy Z says:

      Indeed, that’s why I said that the excuse about the engine being “too complex” was bullshit, because the real reason obviously is that they want to leech money from DLCs, of which people would be a lot less keen to pay for if there was an abundance of free content to be had instead.

      It’s a sad state of affairs, but I’m afraid you’re right – the age of modding is coming to an end. At least in the big names, I’m sure smaller and cooler game studios less fussed about this DLC malarkey still see the value of mod support.

  31. mkultra says:

    Hey, look, another sequel.

  32. Magga says:

    After six years Battlefield is getting proper PC treatment again. Yay. I hope they won’t fuck up hitboxes like they did in BFBC2.

    To all those who are upset about absence of modding tools. I believe that’s just to make money on dlcs and add-on’s. Deal with it.

    • Web Cole says:

      Yeah sure, I’ll deal with. I’ll deal with it by… not buying it?

    • Magga says:

      Then you risk missing a potentially great manshooter. Which are scarce these days. Even if it will bore me within a year (because of the goddamned lack of modding tools and therefore mods) it’s still worth buying.

    • drivebyhobo says:


  33. Snuffy the Evil says:

    “-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?”



    Cryengine 3.

    • Atomosk says:

      I’ve never seen mod tools for a game with completely destructible environments like this before. I think that’s the issue.

      UDK/Cryengine are very complex in their own right (and very expensive to license). I’m not sure why you included Unity. It’s not even on the same level with these other engines. You can make some decent stuff with it but not BF3…

  34. Theory says:

    – Battlefield: £40, no maps or mods, got to pay for new content
    – Red Orchestra: £30 or perhaps less, mod tools from day one, free updates

    I’m sure BF3 will be a lot of fun — and it’s nice that we’ve reached this point in the consoles’ lifecycle — but if the assumptions above prove accurate it’s not good value for money, especially since I already have BC2. I’ll wait for the sale.

    • Delusibeta says:

      Actually, I wouldn’t be surprised if Red Orchestra HoS would sell for £20.

      Also, I saw Battlefield 2 Complete for a tenner in a shop. Still worth it?

    • Web Cole says:

      Yup. Here’s what you do: install 1.41 patch > install 1.5 patch > install Project Reality (Parts 1 -3) link to

      Then its more than worth it ;)

  35. nuh uh no way says:

    What a fucking shame.

  36. Ci2e says:

    I was almost crying before I even reached a quarter through all the bullets.

  37. Theory says:

    Here is the actual quote about mods:

    The only bad news is that modders may not have the kind of access to tools they had before. The Frostbite 2 engine is very advanced, and DICE claim it takes a lot of knowledge and manpower to deliver on the platform. Instead of shipping the SDK, the studio is exploring other options.

    “We will not deliver mod tools in the way that we delivered them for Battlefield 2,” Bach admits. “Creating mod tools today — dumbing them down — takes a lot of energy and what we are discussing more every day is, ‘where do we put our focus’? Right now our focus is to create the best possible multiplayer, single-player, and co-op game — the core game of Battlefield 3. We’re still discussing how we handle modifications of any kind.”

    That post about FB 1.5’s toolchain again.

  38. My2CENTS says:

    Somehow i know DICE would ruin it, its just the simple fact the Frostbite is very badly designed engine.

    • Atomosk says:

      Why would you say that? No mod tools? Ex-game designer for Dice?

      As a gamer I love the engine, looks great and I could spend hours with friends just blowing buildings up and flying helicopters.

    • skinlo says:

      Frostbite 2 looks like a powerful engine from a technical standpoint.

  39. Hybrid says:

    Sounds AWESOME.

  40. Nameless1 says:

    I’ll buy it without any doubt.
    I have been totally satisfied with BC2, and reading those lines make me think it will be the same with b3

  41. neolith says:

    “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?”

    I like to decide for myself what kind of software is too complex for me to master.

    • Dances to Podcasts says:

      What I want to know is, if your tools have become that complicated, what would it do for your productivity?

    • gwathdring says:

      That’s not all there is to it though. It’s also about what is too complex for the developers to make accessible without releasing the whole engine UDK style. They might not be able to easily make a mod-specific set of editing tools with their engine without a lot more work than in previous engines. That still sounds fishy, and I’m not sure I buy it … and I don’t see why they can’t release something like the UDK if they make a BF:3 key necessary to use it or something …

      I suppose more directly, though, it sort of is up to them to decide what software is too complex for their customers to master. If it’s too complex for enough of their fan-base, they might figure the mod tools would effectively be designed for such a small percentage of their fan base that it wouldn’t be worthwhile to make them as a free edition to the game.

      Again, I’m not sure I buy that it IS too complex, but the general idea behind the decision is fair.

  42. phenom_x8 says:

    Why 64 players for PC only? No complains from the console crowd.
    Just read their complains(whining actually) here link to, Q!

  43. MrBRAD! says:

    source: link to

    So far, the game sounds like another BC2; Battlefield without the “Battlefield”. This year is PlanetSide: Next’s year. After that, maybe some BRINK and PR:ARMA2.

    • skinlo says:

      Yes, because a Battlefield is defined by zip lines. Its one of the stupidest things about BF2 imo.

  44. Moraven says:

    Wish they would ignore single player and focus on multi and mod tools. Thats what 1942 and BF2 were all about, multiplayer only. Why try and be CoD? Bad Company and MoH can do that. Bleh at kill cam also.

    • UberMonkey says:

      I completely understand why they’re putting such a heavy emphasis on SP even though I also feel it’s a complete waste of resources. Basically whether you love, hate, or tolerate the CoD series and the rest of the current-gen shooter crop (let’s face it, I mean the console-gen shooter crop), you can’t deny that they’ve had explosive sales results that make anything from the Battlefield series in recent history look like a joke.

      If you take a look at the Steam player counts you’ll find that there are more people playing CODBLOPS singleplayer than playing both BC2 modes put together. Since this is Steam, we’re only looking at the PC userbase for CoD, so… yeah, I imagine it’s also winning on the 360/PS3. I may be somewhat out of touch with the gamers who really support the CoD series (not to mention the entire console shooter demographic), but during both the MW2 and BLOPS releases I mostly heard people talking about the “epic scenes” from the SP game (did the mainstream advertising ever even talk about the MP?). I’m sure people were enjoying the multiplayer just fine at launch, but it seems to be the cinematic SP stuff that’s really drawing the initial crowd (which clearly decides to stay for the MP… the two MP instances of the CoD games are constantly challenging both versions of Counter-Strike).

      I guess my point is that a flashy SP campaign seems to mean way more sales, and BF3 is going to need to compete with CoD whether we want it to or not.

  45. gwathdring says:

    Why not take the time they would spend on singleplayer and divide it between increasing the number and quality and maps and upping the bot quality? Then “Practice Mode” could be a respectable single-player mode in so far as it actually qualified as challenging practice in an environment more like multiplayer rather than in a scripted, single player event that amounted to a separate game.

  46. Commissar says:

    I love it how people still say that MAG has ‘256’ players when actual gameplay is still 8v8 at the same time thanks to chokepoints everywhere and then a steep performance decrease if there’s more than that.

  47. Grape Flavor says:

    RPS: waaaaaaah! BF3’s gonna suck! Ported from console SHIT! No sale assholes! I’m no console tard!!1!!1

    DICE Executive Producer Patrick Bach: “we’re focusing on PC first, and then we fiddle with it to fit it onto consoles.” *shows all the awesome features and improvements from BF2*



    • Commisar says:

      My thought exactly, BF3 is going to be a great game, anyway, I bet more than a few of ‘those’ people are COD-tards anyway