Battlefield 3 PS3, X360 to support half PC frame rate

@47: That was not my point. UT for example looks like shit by todays standards, i know it was the shit back then when it came to graphics, but not today. But people still play it. Why? Because it’s fun. Why do you rather play Battlefield 2 instead of Battlefield Bad Company 2?

@50 Oh I agree. I wasn’t saying that physics couldn’t be part of the fun, if it’s done properly then it’s definitely great. I’d still say it’s more about the application than the actual technology, though. I fail to see how it plays a big part in a “realistic” military shooter like BC2.

I don’t recall using gravity or crushing anyone with falling debris. Aside from the scripted buildings falling down on top of them and what not.

@51 He’s leaving out the fact that none of the games he mentions are made with licensed tech (although with BF1942 it depends on the perspective). It’s all done by developers who are looking to sell engines, as much as the games they make, so of course they have a direct obligation to make sure that they show off everything they can do.

There are plenty of shooters out there that ran on licensed tech, rather than proprietary, and are still great fun for everyone. Deus Ex, CoD, Medal of Honor, Counter-Strike, Soldier of Fortune, Kingpin, Enemy Territory, America’s Army, Clive Barker’s Undying etc.

I recently started playing BF2 again. It’s still an awesome game.

43:
“@40, it’s a FPS game. FPS always need good graphics since Wolfenstein 3D. FPS always pushed the hardware and graphics. thats a fact and it’s always going to be like that.”

did i say the opposite?
yes, shooters always tend to have best graphics in gaming.
Still, they dont need them. At least MP Games dont. SP is completly different affair.
but in an mp the last and realy the very very last thing, im concerend about is the graphic.
its the very last thing that contributes to a fun mp battle.

and for the record: physics arent graphics.

@51, for todays standard it still looks great. It’s not current gen or next gen, but great visuals are not just: Hey guys, lets put a maximum polygons in there and it will look great.

Obviously not.

If you are going to do it right, game can look after 10-20 years great. Engine is obviously a tool, but you can create a really great looking game that can still look good after so many years.

Unreal 2004 is a great game and looks decent even today. Sure it’s not powered by direct X11, physX and other 2011 stuff, but it looks good for what it is because game has it’s artistic soul.

I like Battlefield 2 and Bad Company 2. They are both great. Battlefield 2 is obviously better, but even visually you look at it and really don’t care much about visuals these days, because you GOT in the past that next generation feel with BF2. Time to move on and Battlefield 3 will deliver a current|next gen stuff.

@mojo, “and for the record: physics arent graphics.”

It’s a technology and thats important.

“but in an mp the last and realy the very very last thing, im concerend about is the graphic.
its the very last thing that contributes to a fun mp battle.”

Just try to play multiplayer game with crappy graphics (really crappy) and you will regret it.

Graphics for the MP game is VERY important. Just a simple example:

STALKER vs Call Of Duty multiplayer:

STALKER – enemy models look so damn bad that you can’t recognize who is in your team and who is your enemy.

Call Of duty – you can recognize every enemy. Lightning and everything else is done right to reflect it so you can recognise the target you want.

also, when you make movies for youtube or somethinbg, i want to say that visuals are important as hell.

TD_Monstrous69
20/06/11, 6:57 am

U know what, I appreciate DICE for their honesty on this issue. Though I’m a little bummed the game doesn’t look as great on consoles as it does on the PC (had a feeling it’d be too good to be true), the game still looks great on the PS3 none the less, which is what I’ll be buying it for innitially.

What did you expect? The PC version is always going to be better than the console version. Period.

Console gamers don’t understand the PC platform. It’s not fucking for them and never will be. Fact.

If they did understand the PC platform then they wouldn’t be saying shit like, oh you need a £2000 PC, you need to update your GPU every year, there’s no games on the PC, etc. All of which is nonsense.

Console minions should stick to consoles. It’s a simple box for simple people.

@56 – I agree with pretty much everything you said until I got to the end of your post:

“Console minions should stick to consoles. It’s a simple box for simple people.”

Generalise much?

“Just try to play multiplayer game with crappy graphics (really crappy) and you will regret it.”

no.
thats exactly my point
i dont regret it.
idc for graphics in a multiplayer game.

ive played cs1.6 and css (purposely on lowest graphical settings – although my rig could do far better) long enough to be sure about that.

@52
“I fail to see how it plays a big part in a “realistic” military shooter like BC2.”

Physics is a huge part of the vehicles and how they interact with the environment. I’ve watched a jeep take a jump over some tank wreakage, nose dive on landing and do a 720 roll in the air before coming down an some unsuspecting victim. I’ve crested a hill in BF1943 to see the fuselage of a fighter plane come barrelling towards me and over my head. I’ve been happily capturing a flag in BF2MC safely in my tank whilst some git has parachuted down from a chopper above, chucked C4 at me as he fell, blown me up before landing and taking it back for his team. I take great joy in plying the front of the zippiest vehicle with C4 then charging round as a mobile tank buster, targeting then jumping out just before impact and triggering the C4.

All these fun moments were made possible and enhanced by a great physic engines.

Physics and the graphics are an essential part in BF3. “They” have purposes. It’s not a cool thing because its shiny, and so on. I’ll try to show it with some examples:

- Fog, and lights: We had stupid and bad fog an dlights in other games, but in BF3 There’s lotsa, and it defines the gameplay style. If you’re in a desert, defines where to go, where’s a safe spot etc..

- Lights: If I can recall correctly suppressing fire has a “blinding” effect too, or some sort of thing. Tactics anyone?

- Physics: The enemy is behind a wall. You can’t shoot trough it with your AR, so what do you do? Well: throw a grenade and blast the wall to smitereens -> kill bad man. Switch to your CG and do the same. Or: You need covert because you’re overruned by the enemy forces, what do you do? You shoot at anerby wall corner, or anything wich seems ok for the purpose of MAKING COVER. profit.

There are other things, but i don’t want to post anything bigger here. To sum things up a bit:

The main reason why I simphatize with DICE on the graphics topic is, because they are using the advantages of it, and solely because the game looks prettier than any other to this date.

@59 Fair enough, I didn’t consider that. I was thinking about collapsing structures, or making building materials topple over whoever’s taking cover behind them. To be fair, you don’t need a great physics engine simply do to suspension and weight in terms of vehicles, but I’m sure Frostbite 2 would support a lot more than that in any case.

I agree that C4′ing vehicles was some of the most fun you could have in the original BF2, but it seems to me like the original Frostbite engine didn’t support very many structures, so sadly you had no cover in the form of alleyways etc. That made sneaking up on vehicles a lot less amusing.

@60 Particle effects played no part in the gameplay in BC2, beyond obscuring the destruction.

I also don’t recall ever being suppressed in BC2, or succesfully suppressing anyone. Life means nothing in a game where you just respawn, ergo suppression is useless.

The destruction in BC2 is obviously limited, and the buildings clearly don’t respond to physics. They take a predetermined ammount of damage before collapsing in a standard animation, largely obscured by particle effects.

#61 By the Suppressing thing I meant BF3, not the previous ones

@62 Ah, well I haven’t played that one

What was the frame rate on Bad Company 2? It should be just as good as that maybe even better.