Trailers: Battlefield 3 - Physical Warfare Pack Trailer

[Team Hollywood]

Battlefield 3 - Physical Warfare Pack Trailer

Use all sorts of heavy hitting weapons in the Physical Warfare Pack for Battlefield 3.

Watch Video

 

[Awexsome]

Y'know I'd give a damn about Battlefield if it game a damn about we console players. They've heartily convinced me by now DICE only really cares about it's PC players and EA only cares about its inferiority complex to CoD.

 

[Kyle 2175]

Y'know I'd give a damn about Battlefield if it game a damn about we console players. They've heartily convinced me by now DICE only really cares about it's PC players and EA only cares about its inferiority complex to CoD.

Battlefield Bad Company 1 & 2 were very much designed for console, hell, 1 was only on console. I played Battlefield Bad Company 2 on console and I felt that it was supported just fine. It was, and still is, a really fun game regardless of what you play it on. What is the difference here? They're doing things on PC that would be far harder to do on console? How many console games allow so much as 24(Battlefield on console) players in a match? The reason that they're allowing up to 64 on PC is because of dedicated servers that can support that many players, you don't get that very often on console. Lastly, what has that little rant of yours got to do with a pre-order bonus?

 

[Pebsy]

Y'know I'd give a damn about Battlefield if it game a damn about we console players. They've heartily convinced me by now DICE only really cares about it's PC players and EA only cares about its inferiority complex to CoD.

Ontop of what Kyle said. The guys at DICE have to re-engineer each map for console players from the PC versions. Since a 64 player map wouldn't work with a 32 player cap very well, DICE actually went back and did things such as shorten the length of roads, compress a bulding slightly, shift distances between locations, etc. So you all get the same map, but without running for an hour to the front line. Most developers just give you the dumbed down 32 player map size rather than adjusting the the 64 player one for every single map

 

[Awexsome]

Y'know I'd give a damn about Battlefield if it game a damn about we console players. They've heartily convinced me by now DICE only really cares about it's PC players and EA only cares about its inferiority complex to CoD.

Ontop of what Kyle said. The guys at DICE have to re-engineer each map for console players from the PC versions. Since a 64 player map wouldn't work with a 32 player cap very well, DICE actually went back and did things such as shorten the length of roads, compress a bulding slightly, shift distances between locations, etc. So you all get the same map, but without running for an hour to the front line. Most developers just give you the dumbed down 32 player map size rather than adjusting the the 64 player one for every single map

Dumbed down 32? Try dumbed down 24.

I'm just trying to get some balance in with a lot of people talking about how it's going to change the modern shooter landscape when in reality it's not even going to beat MW3 in terms of players and probably be on par or worse than MW3's quality of production.

 

[Stravant]

Even if it does have less players, it still has lots of things people like having that CoD does not, like vehicles and infantry mixed together, and lots of teamwork.

 

[Black Watch]

I can't wait for this game, and personally, I am glad that they are pouring everything into the PC version. It is going to make the 360 version so much more than it would be if they built it on the console. Oh and they beautiful trailer made my dangly bits move.

 

[garfoldsomeoneelse]

​

I estimate that this game will reduce my overall productivity by at least 60% once I attain it... and that cannot happen soon enough.

 

[CD-R]

Y'know I'd give a damn about Battlefield if it game a damn about we console players. They've heartily convinced me by now DICE only really cares about it's PC players and EA only cares about its inferiority complex to CoD.

Ontop of what Kyle said. The guys at DICE have to re-engineer each map for console players from the PC versions. Since a 64 player map wouldn't work with a 32 player cap very well, DICE actually went back and did things such as shorten the length of roads, compress a bulding slightly, shift distances between locations, etc. So you all get the same map, but without running for an hour to the front line. Most developers just give you the dumbed down 32 player map size rather than adjusting the the 64 player one for every single map

Dumbed down 32? Try dumbed down 24.

I'm just trying to get some balance in with a lot of people talking about how it's going to change the modern shooter landscape when in reality it's not even going to beat MW3 in terms of players and probably be on par or worse than MW3's quality of production.

It's actually not even an issue of dumbing down for consoles. It's an issue of the bandwidth limits Sony and Microsoft have on their networks. The developers already explained it awhile ago.

http://forum.ea.com/eaforum/posts/list/5459078.page

Spoiler

Originally Posted by HONK-DICE/Henrik
Quote:
My name is Henrik and I'm one of the programmers on Frostbite,

First of all you are of course right when it comes to games being made on a first generation engine. There are allways things that you don't manage to fix before launch (or even notice until after launch even though you've had hundreds of testers playing the game for months)

These are the reasons why we only have 24 players in BC/1943
* Performance - making a game with so much destruction, vehicles and with that scale and still trying to keep it good looking is hard. 33ms/frame is disappearing pretty fast... if we removed the destruction and instead precalculated stuff I'm sure we could have squeezed in many more players performance-wise. We are of course always working on performance

* Network bandwidth restrictions - There are pretty tough restrictions on how much data that is allowed to be sent to the client on 360/ps3, the destruction and the vehicles steal _lots_ of bandwidth, a vehicle is much more expensive than a soldier. Every object that is moved by simulation and is gameplay affecting need to be at the same place on all clients at the same time and therefore need to be networked, the destructable state also need to be networked. And as you know we have vehicles and lots of destruction in bc/1943.

We are actually running about ~12 game servers on each physical server, meaning that each physical server can handle about ~300 players. We could easily switch so we had less game servers running 32 or more players but then every client would need to receive much more data over the network which might break the rules microsoft and sony have put up. The reason why they've put up these rules is to ensure the quality of the game for all players, maybe we could someday implement matchmaking (or server browsing) that would let the player join servers with more players if his/her internet connection bandwidth allows it.

There will of course also be lots of optimizations on the network protocol which will make it easier to squeeze in more players on a server without violating bandwidth recommendations.

* Design - I can't remember how we ended up with the limit of 24 players but I guess it was a compromise in order to get the destruction and visual quality that we wanted. It is also harder to balance gameplay on levels with more players, since we're doing lots of play testing to make the levels fun you can imagine how hard it would be to tweak if the level supported 200 players (even though it would be really cool )

There is nothing (that I know of) that limits the number of players in frostbite, and if there is, it is probably a bug. I've tested running over 80 players locally (client-server) on the consoles when measuring performance and it works just fine (except framerate).

I hope I covered most of it

Basically it was either cut down the number of players or get rid of vehicles, destructible environments, and make the game look like crap. There's nothing DICE can do about X-Box Live and PSN's policies.

 

[vermin_]

Sigh.

BF3, GW2. My social life is over.

 

[UnderCoverGuest]

Y'know I'd give a damn about Battlefield if it game a damn about we console players. They've heartily convinced me by now DICE only really cares about it's PC players and EA only cares about its inferiority complex to CoD.

Yeah, totally agree. If the Xbox and PS3 didn't suck so badly in comparison to the versatility of the PC as games such as broad-scale 32 to 64 player games like ARMA 2 and Battlefield 2 have shown, th--sorry, sorry, I've spent the past two weeks being generally nice with my posting, I had to troll eventually. No hard feelings brohamian, just ignore me.

Anywho, I remember a time when the DAO-12 and H&K MG36 were available simply by playing the game, and not something special to be granted only after paying for them.

 

[UnderCoverGuest]

Y'know I'd give a damn about Battlefield if it game a damn about we console players. They've heartily convinced me by now DICE only really cares about it's PC players and EA only cares about its inferiority complex to CoD.

Yeah, totally agree. If the Xbox and PS3 didn't suck so badly in comparison to the versatility of the PC as games such as broad-scale 32 to 64 player games like ARMA 2 and Battlefield 2 have shown, th--sorry, sorry, I've spent the past two weeks being generally nice with my posting, I had to troll eventually. No hard feelings brohamian, just ignore me.

Anywho, I remember a time when the DAO-12 and H&K MG36 were available simply by playing the game, and not something special to be granted only after paying for them.

 

[Korzack]

Hold on, the game's not even out yet and they're trying to flog us DLC?

Fantastic work, EA... Yer gang of logically-challenged Baboons.

 

[CD-R]

Y'know I'd give a damn about Battlefield if it game a damn about we console players. They've heartily convinced me by now DICE only really cares about it's PC players and EA only cares about its inferiority complex to CoD.

Yeah, totally agree. If the Xbox and PS3 didn't suck so badly in comparison to the versatility of the PC as games such as broad-scale 32 to 64 player games like ARMA 2 and Battlefield 2 have shown, th--sorry, sorry, I've spent the past two weeks being generally nice with my posting, I had to troll eventually. No hard feelings brohamian, just ignore me.

Anywho, I remember a time when the DAO-12 and H&K MG36 were available simply by playing the game, and not something special to be granted only after paying for them.

You don't have to pay for them it's a timed exclusive. Everyone gets them after a certain amount of time. Also if the type 88 is anything like the type 88 in Bad Company 2 it isn't really much to get excited over.

 

[A Pious Cultist]

Y'know I'd give a damn about Battlefield if it game a damn about we console players. They've heartily convinced me by now DICE only really cares about it's PC players and EA only cares about its inferiority complex to CoD.

The console version will be fine. They're just trying to get as many PC players as possible on board and hype it as the superior version for those that have the choice. A bit of a love letter to PC gamers. As for the CoD comparisons, half of it is earnest attempts to one up it the other is just marketing hype. They want fanboys. They want drama.

 

[UnderCoverGuest]

I remember a time when the DAO-12 and H&K MG36 were available simply by playing the game, and not something special to be granted only after paying for them.

You don't have to pay for them it's a timed exclusive. Everyone gets them after a certain amount of time. Also if the type 88 is anything like the type 88 in Bad Company 2 it isn't really much to get excited over.

Oh. Did not know that. Well okay then, whoop whoop!