Jump to content



Photo

Battlefield 3

official fps battlefield dice pc xbox 360 ps3

  • Please log in to reply
6939 replies to this topic

#46 Ayepecks

Ayepecks

    Neowinian Senior

  • 17,987 posts
  • Joined: 22-December 01
  • Location: United States

Posted 10 February 2011 - 19:49

No, I know they have a separate team. But the people making the levels for singleplayer could make maps for multiplayer instead. People making models and textures that won't be seen in multiplayer could be spent making models and textures for multiplayer. People creating the scripts and animations for single player could be making them for multiplayer instead.

You think there aren't people doing that in the multiplayer team? You think having more people will inherently make that portion of the game better?


#47 TheLegendOfMart

TheLegendOfMart

    Neowinian Senior

  • 9,281 posts
  • Joined: 01-October 01
  • Location: England

Posted 10 February 2011 - 19:52

I have no expectations on the number of maps. I'm saying that there could be MORE if they weren't doing them for singleplayer.

As already stated they arent working to time constraints, they have already planned out how many multiplayer maps they are going to make, they dont just keep making things till they run out of time, having more people wont get things done any better.

#48 thatguyandrew1992

thatguyandrew1992

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,326 posts
  • Joined: 22-January 09

Posted 10 February 2011 - 19:55

You think there aren't people doing that in the multiplayer team? You think having more people will inherently make that portion of the game better?

I know that there are. Yes. Because their time could be spent on making multiplayer better. If they all switched to multiplayer and suddenly the game was ready to be released earlier, then great, or maybe they could have added more to it.

I'm sorry if I sound illogical I just don't understand why no one sees my point. :pinch:

As already stated they arent working to time constraints, they have already planned out how many multiplayer maps they are going to make, they dont just keep making things till they run out of time, having more people wont get things done any better.

Ok. Let's say they planned 5 maps. Then they decided to scrap singleplayer and move them to multiplayer. Wouldn't you think we could get MORE maps?

#49 HawkMan

HawkMan

    Neowinian Senior

  • 22,102 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 04
  • Location: Norway
  • Phone: Noka Lumia 1020

Posted 10 February 2011 - 19:57

I know that there are. Yes. Because their time could be spent on making multiplayer better. If they all switched to multiplayer and suddenly the game was ready to be released earlier, then great, or maybe they could have added more to it.

I'm sorry if I sound illogical I just don't understand why no one sees my point. :pinch:


Ok. Let's say they planned 5 maps. Then they decided to scrap singleplayer and move them to multiplayer. Wouldn't you think we could get MORE maps?


because only so many people can work on the code at one point.

because the multiplayer can only have so many art assets.

because they can only test and balance so many multiplayer maps before launch, no matter how many people that make them.

because the SP team, don't do multiplayer, they do SP. they would be useless for MP.

because lot of people buy games for SP to and then get into the MP.

Ok. Let's say they planned 5 maps. Then they decided to scrap singleplayer and move them to multiplayer. Wouldn't you think we could get MORE maps?


no

#50 Ligan

Ligan

    Conformist

  • 107 posts
  • Joined: 08-October 05
  • Location: The very fabric of time and space.

Posted 10 February 2011 - 20:05

Sorry thatguyandrew1992, but I don't think you have a shred of a clue what you're talking about. Budgeting developer workflow is much more complicated than taking a team of 100 and splitting things even. It's not that simple. Art assets and animations, things like that can be swapped interchangably. I think you'd have to read more into an atypical development process rather than give an argument devoid of any critical thinking.

The argument, by the way, is pretty silly to begin with. To a certain point, more people working on something does NOT equal more quality and replayability.

#51 thatguyandrew1992

thatguyandrew1992

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,326 posts
  • Joined: 22-January 09

Posted 10 February 2011 - 20:05

because only so many people can work on the code at one point. I could see that. Could you elaborate?

because the multiplayer can only have so many art assets. Could current assets not be improved or be made faster since there would be more people?

because they can only test and balance so many multiplayer maps before launch, no matter how many people that make them. Can't the people testing singleplayer go and test multiplayer? And if it's the same people testing, then they would have time to test multiplayer since they would be no singleplayer

because the SP team, don't do multiplayer, they do SP. they would be useless for MP. I agree SOME would be useless, but they are still making a videogame, I'm sure they could work on multiplayer without much of a problem

because lot of people buy games for SP to and then get into the MP. I totally agree. But that doesn't really matter for this conversation. :blink:



no Why do you think that?



#52 epk

epk

    Neowinian

  • 631 posts
  • Joined: 20-April 10
  • Location: Not so icy Iceland
  • OS: Windows 8.1 x64
  • Phone: Lumia 800

Posted 10 February 2011 - 20:06

Prolly not if they did it half way, but I do agree with you that if they had put their minds (and plans, and money) in a multiplayer only game, it could've made a different. By the way, I don't think Andrew is saying no SP at all, he prolly means it'd be ok with something like in BF2 where SP is MP with bots.

#53 thatguyandrew1992

thatguyandrew1992

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,326 posts
  • Joined: 22-January 09

Posted 10 February 2011 - 20:07

Sorry thatguyandrew1992, but I don't think you have a shred of a clue what you're talking about. Budgeting developer workflow is much more complicated than taking a team of 100 and splitting things even. It's not that simple. Art assets and animations, things like that can be swapped interchangably. I think you'd have to read more into an atypical development process rather than give an argument devoid of any critical thinking.

The argument, by the way, is pretty silly to begin with.

I suppose so lol :laugh:

Haha I guess it is, I just want to understand their point of view.

#54 Digitalx

Digitalx

    Antz007x

  • 9,157 posts
  • Joined: 26-June 05
  • Location: Auckland, New Zealand
  • OS: Windows 7 & Android

Posted 10 February 2011 - 20:25

It's kinda obvious the simple reason there's single player like it or not is because of consoles and because this is intended to be a full price physical media game which consolers can't justify like us on pc can as we done with bf2.

They could spend time making an awesome online exclusive game for pc with only multiplayer... but unfortunately they're only interested in making money and not quality games anymore so yeah they're burning unnecessary resources in wrong areas for their own gain so it comes around really.

#55 HawkMan

HawkMan

    Neowinian Senior

  • 22,102 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 04
  • Location: Norway
  • Phone: Noka Lumia 1020

Posted 10 February 2011 - 20:25

the code can only be split up into so many modules, for efficient coding eahc module can only really have 2-3 active coders, usually 3 gets to many, and most modules can't have more than 1, or they'll mess up for each other.

No, more people can't make assets faster or better. one guy can only make one asset, then handed over to the texture guy and animation guy where applicable.

Test people are actually rather irrelevant, at some point you will simply have to many of them and they become less useful more of a hindrance. and they're generally cheap, so you can easily have enough testers for MP and SP.

part of the teams are shard between the two, mostly the art teams. (getting back to this). the rest, no they can't really do anything useful that the people on the MP team don't already do better. they'd just be in the way.



As for the art thing. Art is actually the last thing they start working on in the game, and the first thing they finish. coding starts first, and coding+QnA+Debugging finishes. Art while it's the most visible part of the game is the fastest part to complete. Hence why artists will often switch to work on art assets for the other team during dev when needed. Hence more artists aren't useful, and they won't help. on top of that. On top of that if they where to make more levels. they'd run into other problems, first the players would have to many maps to chose from which would cause an issue with players being to spread out. and more importantly. the AnA for the maps take a lot longer than makign them, QnA also including debugging, balancing and bug checking.

#56 SimplySchizo

SimplySchizo

    Neowinian Senior

  • 3,211 posts
  • Joined: 22-March 02
  • Location: Miami, FL

Posted 10 February 2011 - 20:29

I couldn't care less about the engine, nor the graphics. All I want are those epic battlefield sound effects with squad coms alongside the strategic gameplay that was found within bf2.

I loved playing commander in bf2 and having a good commander made a huge difference in win/loss. A commanders ability to scan the field of battle and place UAV's or lay down artillery fire was simply awesome!
Being able to hinder an opposing commander by having a specop take their UAV Stations and artillery guns offline was great and were pivotal to winning.
Battlefield has always been about the teamplay support and every class having to play their roles. Aside from excellent vehicle balancing.

Any focus taken away from each classes individuality and strategic necessity to win a battle will result in a failure imo.
It cannot be any less than what bf2 was. To this day there isn't another game that brings to the table was bf2 does.

BC2 is a great game. Now implement larger maps, more vehicles, artillery placements, uav stations, a commander including a squad/leader com hierarchy giving it strategic sense to the overall battle and you have an ill game!
With BC2's support xp points, imagine a commander issuing orders to takeout opposing artillery guns/uav's or having to defend certain posts or even repairs.
People would actually follow orders if they want that nice bit of xp.

I consider myself a hardcore bf fan as I've put in thousands of hours into the franchise. Finally seeing a BF3 on the horizon is a dream come true.
Still, I hold high expectations and anything less than what was BF2 will be a complete let down. I have a feeling things will be dumbed down for the console but I sure as hell hope not.

#57 OP Crisp

Crisp

    To infinity and beyond

  • 5,527 posts
  • Joined: 06-May 10
  • Location: 127.0.0.1

Posted 10 February 2011 - 20:30

I just find singler player to be a dead part of any game, you play it once and never again once you've beat it. That's just my opinion though.

The future is multiplayer :wacko:

#58 TheLegendOfMart

TheLegendOfMart

    Neowinian Senior

  • 9,281 posts
  • Joined: 01-October 01
  • Location: England

Posted 10 February 2011 - 20:32

Ok. Let's say they planned 5 maps. Then they decided to scrap singleplayer and move them to multiplayer. Wouldn't you think we could get MORE maps?

No because they werent limited to 5 because of any sort of time constraint or lack of resources, thats the amount of maps they wanted to put in the first place.

#59 Frylock86

Frylock86

    Stargate won't die!

  • 2,895 posts
  • Joined: 22-June 09
  • Location: ::1

Posted 10 February 2011 - 22:49

Today, I officially ditched CoD. I'm tired of the complete BULL the developers of that game shovel to PC gamers.


BRING ON BF3!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

#60 Lamp0

Lamp0

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,811 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 08

Posted 10 February 2011 - 23:29

It's kinda obvious the simple reason there's single player like it or not is because of consoles and because this is intended to be a full price physical media game which consolers can't justify like us on pc can as we done with bf2.

They could spend time making an awesome online exclusive game for pc with only multiplayer... but unfortunately they're only interested in making money and not quality games anymore so yeah they're burning unnecessary resources in wrong areas for their own gain so it comes around really.


Here we go, more drivel.