Sections

DICE plans on catering to both the single and multiplayer crowd with Battlefield 3

Tuesday, 5th July 2011 15:18 GMT By Stephany Nunneley

DICE has explained to Edge how it is trying to cater to both the single and multiplayer camps with its latest installment in the Battlefield series, and one of the ways the team is doing this, is by making the “product bigger.”

Speaking in an interview with Edge, executive producer Patrick Bach as well as lead multiplayer designer Lars Gustavsson, said the team learned what players want and don’t want through the development of the Bad Company series, and incorporated these lessons into BF3.

“Most people that hate singleplayer are the ones that love multiplayer,” said Bach. “That’s fine – you don’t have to play it! We want the product to cater for the people who do like single-player and also the people who like multiplayer – and we are adding co-op, too – trying to fill the gaps all the way from the hardcore full-on Conquest mode, to the narrative-driven singleplayer. People just have to understand that we aren’t taking people away from one thing or the other. We’re just making the product bigger.

“Now we are going back to the core series, we’re throwing away everything that has to do with the tone of the Bad Company series, and creating a completely new tone and narrative based on the more authentic focus we had of Battlefield 2.”

“Through the Bad Company splinter branch, we learnt so much about what our audience wants and doesn’t want; we’ve accepted the fact that people are different and want to play differently,” added Gustavsson. “Even though I stubbornly said that Battlefield is always about teamplay, vehicles and big maps, not everyone agrees – not even everyone at the studio.

“We have so much more input in the design process, that we are really happy to be able to cater to everyone. We can provide a good lone wolf experience. We set up our kits to allow for that powerful teamplay unit, but separately they need to be able to stand on their own. We can cater for singleplayer, coop, multiplayer – we can give you the range from lone wolves who hate vehicles to, at the other end of the scale, all out war in Conquest with jets flying overhead.

“Single-player and multiplayer both have their own needs, but in the end I feel it’s utterly important that it feels like the same game. There’s no better way of proving your singleplayer run-and-gun experience than seeing what it feels like against a live human opponent in multiplayer. But we’re more than willing to make differences to deliver the best experience in each. For example, in multiplayer, we do an additional pass for animation. In singleplayer you don’t mind if a guard up on a balcony does a nice Hollywood death animation when you shoot him – stumbling around a bit before falling over. While in multiplayer it needs to be a one-to-one correlation between action and result.”

You an read the interview with both DICE fellas through the links.

BF3 is out this October on PC, PS3, and Xbox 360.

Breaking news

16 Comments

Sign in to post a comment.

  1. G1GAHURTZ

    We can provide a good lone wolf experience. We set up our kits to allow for that powerful teamplay unit, but separately they need to be able to stand on their own.

    Well, that sounds like a gigantic about face of epic proportions…

    No need to guess why they’re going down that route.

    #1 3 years ago
  2. Heinekeno

    Just don`t make Crysis 2 mistake on PC version!!!

    #2 3 years ago
  3. Maximum Payne

    @2 They wouldn’t.You can see PS3 and PC footage there is lot of difference and not just higher resolution,frames and AA…

    #3 3 years ago
  4. Peetry

    I wish games would stop trying to cater for everyone; BF is IMO a game for those who enjoy working as a team. I realise that they are trying to broaden their consumer base but they risk alienating those who enjoy classic BF gameplay. Running and gunning does not belong in BF

    #4 3 years ago
  5. Grimrita

    I dont think DICE can afford to have another crappy BF outing after BC2. But if they treated Bad Company as a different game, then maybe both BF and BC could work, both offering a different experience.

    BC should stick to consoles where it belongs (I cant speak for the console versions) but the PC version felt like a shoddy port, despite claims it wasnt.

    Personally, I havent touched the single player campaign modes in any BF/BC game, so I totally agree with whats being said. BF is all about online play being addictive and fun and 2142 delivered (imo) on all counts. I loved it.

    So come on DICE, show me some actual multiplayer footage so I can place my pre-order!

    #5 3 years ago
  6. G1GAHURTZ

    @5:

    You haven’t seen this yet?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X49G8LtR6MU

    #6 3 years ago
  7. Grimrita

    actually i must have missed that. Hit boxes look no where near as crap as BC2.

    #7 3 years ago
  8. DSB

    I’m worried by how much it looks like BC2, personally. The animations are better and the maps look more ambitious, but the look is extremely similar. I’d like to believe that a company’s last two games don’t really matter to the third, but it feels to me like DICE has gotten stuck in a rut.

    Maybe that’ll change as they start talking more about gameplay than tech.

    @5 Couldn’t agree more. I didn’t think the singleplayer in BC2 was that bad, though. It was pretty broken on launch, but ultimately it was pretty enjoyable, if you could disregard how badly it wanted to be CoD.

    Which was pretty hard. Chase scenes that have you shooting out the back of a truck, WMD, Russian supervillains, invasions of the US and what not. A wee bit familiar.

    #8 3 years ago
  9. OrbitMonkey

    @6 That looks dull :/ Yes its very nice graphically, but running around large open maps for minutes at a time, only to be shot in the face by some guy you don’t see is shite, frankly.

    #9 3 years ago
  10. DrDamn

    @5 & @8
    The SP Campaign in BFBC1 was very good. You could take a freeform almost sandbox approach to a lot of objectives which widened the scope out a lot. BFBC2 SP went very CoD though and it was to it’s detriment.

    #10 3 years ago
  11. DSB

    @10 I actually have it laying around from a friend who didn’t want it. Maybe I should fire it up.

    #11 3 years ago
  12. freedoms_stain

    BC1 Campaign resembles a bot match on Multiplayer maps for the most part. It’s a bit like Rush, do x objective, map opens up allowing you on to y objective etc. It’s not entirely Sandbox unfortunately. On the pause menu you can see the full map, and by the end of the level you’ll have carved a winding path through that map with OOB areas around your carved out trench of playable area. Some of the levels are more open than others and your “carved out area” is never really too narrow or small at any one point to make you feel enclosed in a small playable area or that you’re playing a corridor shooter.

    The thing that really wrecks any sort of sandbox approach to the game are your utterly retarded AI “squad mates” who kill any approach other than full frontal attack by drawing attention to you at every possible opportunity (although utterly failing to provide any meaningful support as they seem to be scripted to shoot at everything but hit or kill nothing). Any time I’d try flanking around an enemy position, maybe try and snipe out obvious targets before moving in Sweetwater would start spraying away with his LMG and Haggard blasting away with his rocket launcher the moment I took my 1st shot. Of course they can’t kill shit and the enemy AI will ignore them and all eyes will be on you.

    There are some good passages of play where the utter retardation of the friendly AI isn’t as detrimental to your efforts, but overall I found my experience marred by the bad parts enough that I haven’t yet been able to bring myself to replay the game on normal after completing the game on Hard and discovering the difficulty achievements didn’t stack.

    The game could and should have had at least 2 player co-op for the story, preferably 4.

    #12 3 years ago
  13. Giskard

    You have all seem to have forgotten that CoD did not invent the RUSSIA IS BAD BECAUSE OF COLD WAR-type of plot. It’s been the go-to generic bad guy plot since pretty much James Bond was invented. Dice know this, and in BC2 they were really going for a cheesy story, thus the russian bad guy suited that perfectly. BC2 is not trying to be a CoD-clone. It takes some inspiration from CoD, granted, but it’s still a battlefield game. A bit watered down, a bit experimental, but still a helluva lot of fun.

    And to you complaining that BF3 “looks similar to BC2″: They’re using an upgraded version of the BC2 engine, which, compared to the CoD you seem to hold oh-so-dearly, is leaps and bounds ahead by everything. CoD has not changed the engine since MW3, while Battlefield has been steadily improving.

    Ofcourse there were bugs in BC2, and hopefully there will be none in BF3. I do also hope for an even better game. But what you’re saying about BC2 seems to be far fetched, as if you hadn’t played the game on a decent PC, after Dice had time to patch some bugs.

    Really guys, stop judging the game before it is even released. DICE have not been shitting in your face, unlike Activision. I doubt they plan on starting now.

    #13 3 years ago
  14. DSB

    CoD didn’t innovate on anything except killstreaks, nobody’s saying it did. 75% of the gameplay is just refined staples of the competitive multiplayer FPS, and that has put them ahead of the field since CoD4.

    It’s obvious where the Battlefield series has been headed for the last two iterations, and it’s obvious that there’s more than a minor ammount of pressure on the developer to go even further, with a publishing head that’s betting several times more than an average budget, on developing his would-be CoD-killer.

    Battlefield has been trying to reinvent itself, and recently trying to learn from CoD. Personally I think they’re doing a poor job of it, and as an old BF2 player, I’d prefer it if they tried harder on recapturing their own gameplay, and wasted less time on tech and scale.

    Considering that EA are, once again, introducing concepts taken straight from the CoDverse, like charging for redone old maps, I think you should be more worried than you are.

    I’m not writing it off, and I’ll certainly be picking it up, but based on their last couple of releases, I’m just not expecting something truly memorable.

    #14 3 years ago
  15. endgame

    @6 hey it’s no one’s fault that u suck. but it’s ok because u can always go and play cod.

    #15 3 years ago
  16. Grimrita

    @10 – the BC2 campaign might have been good but I dont buy BF games to play single player/campaign, its all about online for me.

    My left nipple has gone hard about BF3 but I need the entire body to be stiff before I put my pre-order in after BC2 and all the PR bullshit in the world wont change my mind until beta is out probably

    #16 3 years ago