Last in my improvement series (for today, anyway) is this. It’s pretty long and before you go in, was written from what I considered to be a technical standpoint. End of the day it focusing a little more on the engine than just the game. So if you think I talk about graphics too much and then don’t mention it as a flaw, that’s intentional. Enjoy!
My E3 best in show was never really up for debate. Anyone who knows me could have predicted that Battlefield 3 would come out on top. There was actually reasonable competition from some directions – Mass Effect 3 and Call of Duty had good showings – but DICE’s flagship won out in a number of important respects. Let’s start at the top: their demo was the one and only on stage using a mouse, keyboard, tower and monitor.
Now, I /am/ horribly biased in the direction of my home platform and will argue from now until Geforce and ATI decide on a merger about its superiority over every generation of consoles, but lets actually look at this logically: it was, by far, the prettiest god damn thing. Despite showing little more than a desert and a few tanks, no one came away thinking “well that was alright, but the engine is awful” The technical superiority was easy to see from the detailed interiors to the wonderful sweeping landscape.
When an engine is developed specifically for a game, as Frostbite 2 has been for BF3, and also specifically the PC, this is the kind of quality we can expect. With a lack of DX9 support, and thus no Windows XP, it’s clear DICE are very serious and cutting no corners in making a beautiful game that runs at the best frame rates possible. Their presentations on the engine often point out that the techniques they avoid are too expensive in terms of GPU and CPU time for what they want to do; not that they are technically inferior from a graphical standpoint. And it’s working – while the public machines that have been available at E3 and Dreamhack are by no standards budget choices, it has been confirmed that there was only a single graphics card. It won’t take a re-mortgage just to have a GPU capable of running this game and aging machines should be able to run on medium settings or down. The requirement of DX10 or higher is a trend that has been building momentum, and graphics cards from over four years ago are capable. This also remains the only significant difference between acceptable specs for Bad Company 2 and Battlefield 3.
Gameplay and, specifically in this genre, gunplay are paramount to true excellence. The sound and animation of characters and weaponry plays a big part in these factors being of the highest caliber. Mere glances at trailers show that DICE are ready and willing. The E3 single-player presentation was effectively Frostbite porn, and it got away with it too. Two and a half minutes until any action and it’s still an enthralling watch? Something has been done right. Impact effects are on a new tier: every bullet splinters surfaces while glass shatters and panels fall when exposed to fire, the animation of a one on one fist fight is sublime.
Larger scale effects such as the artillery strikes and sweeping vistas at E3 or the earth-shattering conclusion to the Fault Line footage are simply amazing. First thoughts go to, of course, Call of Duty’s similar set pieces. In this respect, Battlefield 3 is everything Modern Warfare and its peers are and then some. Blinding light and deafening sound, perfect placement of different elements to create the most incredible scene possible. This a game that uses an earthquake to collapse a building onto a helicopter next to the jeep it just rocked you out of. All powered by Destruction 3.0 which, right now, appears to be the biggest multiplayer draw.
Bad Company 2′s destruction effects were a sight to behold at the time, a revolution that changed the way the game was played and made tank driving and artillery calling a pleasing experience every time. The new version creates an experience that is utterly unrivaled. Much larger buildings collapse in a startlingly accurate way, even members of the US Army themselves commented on the attention to detail and adherence to reality and it proved a fan favourite among those attending E3. With rumours of mod tools circulating, this engine could prove a home for some of the best experiences of the next year.
Specifics on multiplayer are filtering out, including class information. Battlefield veterans will notice some differences, the Assault class now incorporating the med pack, allowing them to take as much as they can deal out. Engineer and Recon are remarkably similar to previous incarnations, taking out tanks/walls and long-rage spotting/sniping respectively. The nicest touch is that the Support class, now packing a high powered LMG, will receive points for suppressing fire – constant near misses that keep opponents ducking while others get into position. The potential for tactical play is mouth watering – engineers drop a piece of cover forcing enemies to reposition; support provide a resupply as they keep those same opponents down in their new, less secure homes; assault flank around and evict them while Recon cover approaches and spot additional targets. Throw in a healthy dose of tanks, jets, IFVs and artillery and you have a recipe for greatness.
The mixing pot are the maps. A dedication to providing differing styles of play has been a recent promise. E3 and Dreamhack example map Operation Metro showed the difference between this and previous incarnations – rather than a single wide open area or even an entire island to fight over, Battlefield 3 provides varying environments. This single rush map goes from a large outside park, to the depths of Paris underground and then up again for an explosive finish outside the stock exchange. According to DICE’s development blog, each part of this level is big enough for a reasonable team deathmatch. We’re talking /massive/ scale.
As October 25th approaches expect a constant flow of information from DICE on both Battlefield 3 and Frostbite 2. Both are set to take the gaming world by storm and, for the engine specifically, there is no reason to believe this will be their last outing. Be it 3rd party development, other DICE games or a simple expansion to BF3, we’re looking at the latest revolution. Get ready.
—-
Improvements:
- The first two paragraphs are awful set ups to the one actually relevant line about how the E3 demo was very pretty. They meander, attempt humour, have out of place faux-quotes, show me to be a PC-fascist (pointless almost everywhere, certainly in the PC-focused publication this was sent to), mention other games much too passively – they just aren’t very good.
- And I keep going. Previews are, at least from my point of view, meant to be more positive than a review would be, but this is quite ridiculous. Look how great the PC is! Isn’t the PC awesome! Get on with it Ben. What’s clear about cutting out Windows XP, at that point in your writing, is that they’re cutting out a semi-significant portion of the userbase and that some people are going to have to get an upgrade. I go on to save myself with some decent points on their dedication to prettiness, but if you’re actually still reading at this point that’s no thanks to me.
- My usual strength in pacing sort of evaporates at the end of paragraph four. It’s so poor that it seems odd that I didn’t notice it on a re-read. This is the kind of thing that I would normally edit out. The beginning of this is quite good, I think, particularly pointing out that despite nothing actually happening in one of the trailers, it’s still most excellent.
- Things pick up in Paragraph 6. I’m back in home territory – explaining what’s awesome about an FPS. There’s some wording flaws that could use proper explanation, but when I’m being enthusiastic my writing just feels better. Comments on what may or may not be wrong in this section would be useful.
- The flow from technical description into actual gameplay details is well done. Multiplayer proves a fine segway and I pulled it off pretty well. Once I’m into the multiplayer, I actually explain the gameplay and describe what I mean. The second half of this piece is massively stronger than the first. The play example is a little long winded but gets the point across and does a good job of allowing the reader’s imagination to run wild.
- Conclusion of the piece is a little rushed and needed some more summing up, but it’s okay. The piece as a whole is a combination of a sub-par half and an alright half. Attempting to write in a tech-savvy manner when I’m not tech-savvy was the obvious flaw, and it’s clear I don’t have the necessary knowledge, based on this piece.