DICE: Battlefield 3 needs “special attention” on PC

Thursday, 21st October 2010 18:23 GMT By Justin Kranzl

DICE logo

Developer DICE is well aware of PC gamers’ fears Battlefield 3 will be “consolized”: designer Alan “Demize99″ Kertz acknowledged the concern in a forum thread on EA’s BF3 messageboard this week.

The good news – Kertz is promising not to ignore that concern, which flared up in full force after he mentioned on his Twitter account it wouldn’t be cost effective to develop multiple – PC and console – versions of the one game.

Stating it was too early to discuss BF3 specifics, Kertz gave some background on the design philosophy DICE has adopted when developing titles for console and PC:

Early on BFBC2 our PC playtest feedback showed that weapon feeling was lacking. It just wasn’t as much fun to shoot the guns on PC as on console. With controls being the big gameplay difference (mouse vs pad) it quickly became clear that simply put the original weapon tweaks, which were done on the PS3, weren’t working on PC. The guns all had a bit of base inaccuracy, that with a gamepad wasn’t really noteworthy, but on PC it really prevented players from taking advantage of the mouse input. On 2142 one of the key things about the guns is that they were all deadly accurate, they lost damage over range sure, but if you could put the crosshairs on the target you could hit it. Sure, some people feel like an AR should be more accurate than an SMG or carbine. I feel like the issue is “ARs should be better at range” and thus, they do better damage over range than the SMGs.

In response to the feedback on PC, I completely retweaked the accuracy. The next playtest it was immediately obvious that it was a change for the better, and surprisingly it also made gamepads feel much better as well.

Fundamentally I think it is an error to have different core gameplay on console vs PCs. PC gives a player more input control and if a gun feels good on PC it feels good on console. I won’t “dumb it down” by lowering the recoil or changing the damage model or other such silliness.

PC and Console Battlefield players want similar gameplay: Epic sprawling Battlefields, and also tight infantry fights. Balanced weapons and land/sea/air vehicles with a rock-paper-scissors emphasis. Squad and teamplay, where no one player can be a do-it-all super soldier, and communications systems to support teamplay. And a deep and rewarding system of progression with deep and varied gameplay that keeps you wanting to go 1 more round. Everyone also wants it to be easy to play with their friends.

Consoles generally are less tolerant of overly complex interfaces. They have less buttons, you need more elegant interfaces. Deep systems work well though if they have a straight forward interface. The fun is not in figuring out how to use the system, it’s in figuring out how to best use the system.

PC players have their own set of requirements. 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. PC players also demand a PC interface, a server browser, and anything that feels like it might have been “ported” from a console is going to get flamed hard. They are more forgiving of complex systems and will tear any design down into its parts to really figure out how it works. It’s a damn sight harder to please a PC player, they have higher expectations.

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.

Thanks, Bluesnews.



  1. Erthazus

    “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.””

    I hope not. Console players can enjpy stupid Halo and think that it is GOTY.

    Please DICE, make it good on PC. Make it a great PC title. Please.

    #1 4 years ago
  2. choochoo

    Halo isn’t stupid also we xbox360 owners can Kick your pc butt anyday pc gaming is for losers. So become a man and chuck your pc and get a xbox360 its where all the action is lol.

    #2 4 years ago
  3. Anders

    @2 :D

    #3 4 years ago
  4. Yoshi

    I really hope they make the PC version unique. As much as I love BFBC2 it just doesn’t feel on par with what BF2 offered, okey they are slightly different in styles but still.

    #4 4 years ago
  5. Erthazus

    @2 I don’t know where to start LOL. This post is full of epicness :D

    #5 4 years ago
  6. Elrood

    Statement: “Console players can enjpy stupid Halo and think that it is GOTY.”

    Reaction: “Halo isn’t stupid also we xbox360 owners can Kick your pc butt anyday pc gaming is for losers.”

    It’s this kind of talk which ends in utterly stupid conversations.

    Play what you want to play, but don’t insult another Gamer because he likes something else than you do.

    #6 4 years ago
  7. Erthazus

    @Elrood, it was a joke man. I said “Halo” because it is way to arcadish shooter for my tastes.

    PC is PC and i hope DICE will make a great PC title that is developed specifically for PC.

    #7 4 years ago
  8. polygem

    you call halo stupid but consider yourself a gamer? wow. that´s a statement. it´s like saying i´m a vegetarian but i love big macs…

    #8 4 years ago
  9. spiderLAW

    @8 so wait, you arent a gamer if you dont like Halo?
    When did this start happening? Shit, i might just stop liking Halo just to prove you wrong.
    Half-Life PC>Half-Life2 PC>Counter Strike PC> Unreal Tournament(original)PC>COD4>BfBC2>MW2>Halo2(MP)>Halo:Reach

    #9 4 years ago
  10. Erthazus

    @8 i don’t want to start flame wars, but look at the spiderLAW list. Great list, just don’t understand why he did not included there Quake, Doom or UT2004.

    Halo is Halo. It’s a very subjective thing. First Halo really bring vehicles and regeneration, but is it a good game?

    Some people say Yes, some people say No. If thats the case than it’s really something wrong with it.

    People say that Half-Life is an awesome franchise. 90% of people say that and don’t argue about it because everybody know its a masterpiece.

    Halo is basically Unreal tournament but a little bit slow and arcadish. Not my cup of tea.

    #10 4 years ago
  11. spiderLAW

    I didnt include UT2004 because i didnt play it. I skipped over it to the next UT and never got around to trying it afterwards (i was in between PCs ofr like a 1yr at the time). Quake 1 i liked (and it was revolutionary for its time) but never played the rest of the Quake games afterwards (where trhough a time where all i played was half-life and unreal tournament). Didnt care much for Doom3. Doom 1 and 2 were amazing though (for the time anyways lol)

    #11 4 years ago
  12. Grimrita

    Despite all his hot air, you still need to actually miss the head to get a headshot. No mention about the bullet proof leaves.

    The standards of shooters has declined greatly over the past couple of years. Lots of bugs, lazy developing, crap maps and to think, DICE use to be the masters.

    #12 4 years ago
  13. polygem

    well if you call halo stupid i´d definitely say you do not know much about games. if you do not like it that´s something different. if you say you do not like it because it´s “too slow paced, too arcadish” (which it isn´t imo – unreal tournament or cod are way more arcadish) – then say that – i´m fine with it. BUT still halo is a great game, a very well crafted and balanced one. hate it for it´s artwork, pace whatever but this doesn´t make it a bad or even “stupid” game. it´s a pretty clever game actually. it just doesn´t fit your taste. to say it´s stupid because of that is kind of stupid – that´s all i was trying to say.

    #13 4 years ago
  14. spiderLAW

    Yeah it seems that its becoming a normal thing to have issues in FPS. Halo Reach, COD4, MW2, BFBC2 all have bulletproof leaves. I have yet to encounter that issue in BFBC2 myself but ill take your word for it. As for the other 3 games, i sure have experienced that problem. Not sure if MOH has it or not (not very many leaves in MOH)

    #14 4 years ago
  15. spiderLAW

    Okay that makes sense. Just still doesnt mean that hes not a gamer for saying that.

    #15 4 years ago
  16. Erthazus

    “which it isn´t imo – unreal tournament or cod are way more arcadish”

    Show me a Halo gameplay trailer with that gameplay. Thats Unreal gameplay that is used for cybersport.
    Halo use same things slower.

    Everything else is just a matter of opinion.

    #16 4 years ago
  17. Shokaku

    DICE should be not ‘consolization’ with making MoH.. FAIL! MoH multi was always with big tradition on PC…

    #17 4 years ago
  18. FadeLive

    Dedicated servers and mod tools are all im asking for. Please make it happen DICE. Oh and no sneaky “map packs” that just add existing maps to new modes. Rather have some new maps instead amirite.

    #18 4 years ago
  19. CaptPierce

    Another day, another elitist PC gamer attitude that sees console players as inferior and PC players as members of the so called “Aryan PC master race”. Honestly, what is so great about PC gaming I can’t do for less money, more friends, and the same amount of graphical detail and fun?

    #19 4 years ago
  20. spiderLAW

    MOH for PC sucked. I bought it on PC and even on my i7 it was choppy. I had a solid 55-60fps but still would get these sudden jolts when id play online and they were very frequent. I adjusted everything possible (even over clocked my 2g crossfire cards) and still the jolts persisted. So i sold it for $50 and bought it on PS3 for $40 instead. Havent had any issues on PS3 besides framerate drops in single player.
    Its sad when a game like Crysis with its powerful graphix can run better than MOH on PC. hopefully BF3 doesnt have this problem. BF2 was epic

    #20 4 years ago
  21. spiderLAW

    I prefer consoles to PC (now, not back in the late 90s and 2000-2004) but to say its the same level of graphics isnt a correct statement and thats actually the only superior part of a PC. The graphics and the framerate are far better on PC, but you pay the price for it.

    #21 4 years ago
  22. CaptPierce

    Yeah, I’ll admit that some games on the PC look better than consoles do, but we’re reaching the age that PS3 games can reach detail to where it doesn’t even matter. Besides, why would I use $700-$800 on a PC that will be obsolete 6-18 months later for something that plays the same game for $300 that will make games for at least 8-10 years?

    #22 4 years ago
  23. SwiftRanger

    Good to see that Dice acknowledges these points but they said the same stuff about BC2 and that still had a server browser which was as bad as the BF2 server browser.

    I believe they are making BF3 for PC first given the lineage and popularity of past Battlefield PC-only titles. The biggest problem imo seems to come from the fact that BC2 already filled a gap that BF2 and BF2142 left. BC2 feels too crowded and too limited at times but not that much. I am starting to worry about what exactly BF3 is gonna add more to that; that leaked document from a few years ago wasn’t exactly thrilling.

    #23 4 years ago
  24. RoarrrUK

    Why PC? Choice. It’s a thing people should value. If myself or anyone else can afford it and want the superior (full >native HD res, 16 xx, dx11) then so be it. If you just want simpler instalaltion, friends lists etc, then console.
    Or better sstill just get both.

    But there are differences. Theres no need to justify to anyone but yourself why you don’t use PCs. If you can’t see genuine reasons, I don’t know why that is.

    #24 4 years ago
  25. Erthazus


    First of all when you pay 500-800$ to play games multiplatform they always will look better.
    After 6-18 months you just can’t play in the same benchmark quality but it will be ALWAYS better than on consoles.

    Do you realise that consoles have graphics chips at the level of NVIDIA Geforce 7900? Basically a 500$ USD PC is enough to play anything this gen on max or on medium settings and it will look always better on PC.

    Second, Games are cheaper

    Third, Steam is Free and it is better that PSN and XBOX LIVE and you have all Netflixes and e.t.c. there

    Fourth, Mouse and keyboard. If you are playing shooters it is a definitive choice to play these games. Much better and smoother in most cases.

    Fifth, MODS and giant mod community.

    and e.t.c. Try it before you say something stupid about PC gaming when you never had a decent PC gaming rig.

    PC gaming was always a great thing. There is not such thing as a “Aryan PC master race”, but people who pay money for it enjoy gaming a lot.

    #25 4 years ago
  26. polygem

    @16: you really don´t have to tell me about ut. i played these games a lot. but it´s not the same things just slower in halo. wtf? it´s a completely different game. maybe you should play halo first? @15 in the context of him saying it´s a stupid game i can call him a non gamer. only fair. yingyang. karma is a bitch. but we sorted that out in the end i guess.

    #26 4 years ago
  27. Oct..

    Oh c’mon!! Where’s Mirror’s Edge 2!!

    #27 4 years ago
  28. Freek

    The hilarity of the situation is that there is verry little difference between the platforms in terms of technology or in terms of gameplay desire.
    The audiance for Battlefield expects the same on both platforms: Battlefield gameplay. The technology doesn’t stand in the way of that either.

    The silly arguments come from the past when technology between the platforms was verry different and developers did not fully understand that people on either platform diden’t desire a simplyfied gameplay.
    Game developers got past that stage and are simply making the game they want, regardless of where you play it. Fallout, Bioshock, Battlefield, they aren’t any more or less complex on any particular platform. They are as the designers intended them to be.
    It’s time gamers moved on from the silly arguments aswell.

    #28 4 years ago
  29. SwiftRanger

    “The technology doesn’t stand in the way of that either.”

    It does, especially for Battlefield-gameplay. Even though MAG makes it sound easy (it’s built specifically for one kind of console), most multiplayer FPS games on consoles have smaller maps and less maximum players on said maps than is possible on a medium PC spec. For a multiplatform title features do get restricted on PC, it happened with BC2 (32 player limit). I hope it won’t happen with BF3.

    #29 4 years ago

Comments are now closed on this article.