[QUOTE=64fanatic;27945251]Not enough info for me to care at all yet.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for sharing.
sharing is caring
Cannot wait.
[QUOTE=Im Crimson;27944473]A game, any game of significant complexity, will appear to be geared towards a specific platform one way or another. The attributes making this distinguishable can be anything from how the menu looks to how interaction feedback feels to what limitations has been put down in terms of features and functionality. It ultimately depends on design decisions taken by the developers. That game will be more or less worse on other platforms.[/QUOTE]
I think I gained IQ by reading that post. Very smart.
For some reason, I'm getting the impression that the Bad-Company series was a "test-bed" for the Frostbite engine. They needed to make money and globally test a game engine before making the next Battlefield game.
[QUOTE=thedekoykid;27947226]For some reason, I'm getting the impression that the Bad-Company series was a "test-bed" for the Frostbite engine. They needed to make money and globally test a game engine before making the next Battlefield game.[/QUOTE]
Impression ? it's pretty much a sure thing, just look how unpolished or silly some things are, and they even said "It was bigger than expected".
It was more of an experiment than a game, but since it's DICE even their experiments can be amazing.
I've never been so hyped up for a game so early in development. I'm already sure this game is going to earn a lot of GotY awards.
[QUOTE=Sharp_Shooter;27947446]I've never been so hyped up for a game so early in development. I'm already sure this game is going to earn a lot of GotY awards.[/QUOTE]
Spoiler:
"Best multiplayer of 2011 goes to... CALL OF DUTY: MODERN WARFARE 3"
:smithicide:
Every other forum I visit just wants it to be BC3, Regenerating Health, 4 classes, all that.
"if bf3 is like bf:bc2 just tweaked here and there, day one purchase "
This is why I love Facepunch.
[QUOTE=Creeper;27947892]Every other forum I visit just wants it to be BC3, Regenerating Health, 4 classes, all that.
"if bf3 is like bf:bc2 just tweaked here and there, day one purchase "
This is why I love Facepunch.[/QUOTE]
Other forums are full of 12 year olds.
We just have a lot of autists.
[QUOTE=Creeper;27947892]Every other forum I visit just wants it to be BC3, Regenerating Health, 4 classes, all that.
"if bf3 is like bf:bc2 just tweaked here and there, day one purchase "
This is why I love Facepunch.[/QUOTE]
4 classes has an actual purpose other than making the medic nearly useless outside hardcore.
[QUOTE=Erebus.;27943409][code]So how about modtools?
Zh1nt0 and you folks have asked about it, so here's a piece on the modtools situation for BC2 PC.
Frostbite 1.5 consists of these components:
The game runtime
The editor runtime
The content processing runtime (aka "the pipeline")
and some plugins for Maya
The game runtime is distributed outside of EA, but the editor + pipeline + Maya plugins are not.
So let's take a look at some things that would need to be solved before we'd be ready to distribute the editor + pipeline.
Pipeline operation
Let's say that you tell the pipeline to build level MP_003.
MP_003 is represented by an XML file, which references a bunch of other files. These in turn reference other files. If you follow this graph of references, you will find the level layout, heightmap, characters, weapons, vehicles, and all the content that you can see in-game. (The in-game HUD and related stuff might also be in the graph.)
When the pipeline is about to build MP_003, it will first perform a consistency check on all content, and yell if any file that is referenced by any other is not present.
If all files are present, the pipeline will attempt to convert all files referenced by MP_003. It uses the file system journal to determine which files have changed on-disk. Also, and any files that have already been converted have info on which files depend on it (so it has info like: "if file X changes, then files Y,Z,W will also need to be rebuilt").
Building all content for BC2 from scratch takes something like 48-72 hours on a normal workstation. Half that time is spent building common content (such as character animations), half builds level-specific content.
In addition, there's a caching mechanism: if the pipeline wants to build a specific bit of content, it will first check if the pre-built content is already available on a cache server and take the result directly from the cache server instead. The pipeline can also populate the cache if it builds something new.
Pipeline issues
So how does this work in practice? It's not ideal, but it's good enough for us to ship games on it.
The pipeline is a bit overzealous with regards to rebuilding assets - sometimes it rebuilds stuff that it shouldn't need to.
The pipeline will normally crash about 2-3 times during a full rebuild.
You need to have Maya 8.5 (32-bit version) installed in order to convert any meshes.
Any content in the cache expires after 3 weeks. After 3 weeks have passed, that content will need to be rebuilt and re-uploaded by a machine running the pipeline. The effect that this has on day-to-day development is minimized by having one or two machines dedicated to running the pipeline every time any content change is done. By running the pipeline, those machines will populate the cache, thereby speeding up the build process for everyone else. (The output form those content build steps is discarded.)
In short: the pipeline + cache setup works better the more people are using it simultaneously.
If there are content errors, you need to know a lot about the internals of the game engine to figure out what's wrong.
Finally, in its current form, the pipeline + editor expects some specific IT infrastructure in place (most notably the cache server and a Perforce server).
If it's not there then the pipeline + editor will behave strangely.
The first time I tried, it took me about one week to get the full editor + pipeline setup to work properly outside of the DICE office. And that was when I had the option to call any of the other developers to ask for help.
... does this sound bad to you?
Truth be told, this is approximately where the industry average is at for game studios' internal game engines. One of FB 1.5's weaknesses is specifically that its content processing is flaky, and the flakiness gets more problematic as the amount of content goes up. FB 2.0 is much improved in this regard, but FB 1.5 is what we're using for BC2 and that's what relevant in the current discussion (or monologue if you prefer).
Content
Both the pipeline and the editor takes in all content in its raw, original form. Anyone who is to build any content needs the full 80GB of raw data on their machine. We are not comfortable giving out all our animations, meshes etc in raw form.
We are comfortable giving out the processed data - after all, that's what on the game disc - but that data does not plug into the editor/pipeline at all.
Licenses
The game, editor and pipeline all use commercial middleware. It is developed by Havok and several other companies.
The licensing agreement for the middleware allows us to use that code in specific products, on specific platforms.
If we want to release editor + pipeline, we need to license the middleware specifically for this. How much would that be? Perhaps $1M-$3M. I'm guessing wildly here.
Stripping out that middleware would seriously hamper the functionality especially of the pipeline. We use Havok Physics, for instance. Without Havok Physics, the pipeline wouldn't be able to convert any of the physics meshes. We also use Granny. Without Granny, the pipeline will not be able to convert any of the character animations. Etc.
Re-implementing the necessary functionality of the middleware ourselves ("let's make our own physics engine / let's plug in an open-source physics engine") would take literally man-years. Licensing is cheaper in pure $ cost and faster (it works now instead of by 2012).
The pipeline also uses some code that is under GPL. Given that we do not want to release the full source code for the editor + pipeline, we would need to replace the GPLed code with other implementations.
The GPLed code is less of a problem than the proprietary middleware.
Editor
The editor itself is reasonably stable and well-behaving. It is far from obvious how to set up the game logic for a level, but that is easily covered by releasing some example levels which contain the logic setup for the common gamemodes.
Test-running levels
First the level needs to be successfully processed by the pipeline. Then you'd want to be able to test it locally. That involves having a listen server around. We don't have a listen server neatly packaged. There's probably a piracy angle here too but I'm not going to discuss that.
Distribution of levels
Getting levels onto the RSPs server machines would likely not be any problem. However there's need for checksumming levels, so that game clients can know whether or not they have the correct version of level X on their machines. There's a whole bunch of other things (mainly UI-related) which will need cleaning up as well. Not difficult to do, just takes time and I'm listing it for the sake of completeness.
Also, there are some complications wrt when we release patches that affect the base game's content. Whenever we release a patch, all existing levels will need to be rebuilt with a new set of original data. This is because some level-common data is stored inside of the level archives. I'm not sure at the time of writing, but that probably means that the only manageable way for us would be to invalidate any user-made levels when we release a patch of that form.
Then creators of any user-generated levels would be required to run their levels again through the pipeline with the new base content supplied.
So how about just a map editor?
If it doesn't plug into the ecosystem above, then getting it to work involves some serious wrangling. Either it is a light-weight replacement for our existing editor - in which case all the challenges with the pipeline still remain - or it is a separate mode (think Forge for Halo). Developing an extra mod-layer that is sandwiched into the game would easily take 6-12 months.
Synergy effects between FB 1.5 and FB 2.0
So let's say that we would go through the procedure of making mod tools for FB 1.5. How much of that work would be reusable for FB 2.0?
I don't have any firm figures, but the differences between FB 1.5 and FB 2.0 are pretty large by now. Given this and the fact that a fair bit of the FB 1.5-specific problems (where the devil often is in the details) don't apply to FB 2.0, I'd guess that less than half of the work would port over to FB 2.0.
Conclusion
In conclusion, my recommendation to the rest of DICE is not to develop mod tools for BC2 PC. There are too many hurdles to overcome. That energy is better spent elsewhere, be that on BC2 or other titles.[/code]
It'd be extremely hard to get mod tools working.
Source: [url]http://forums.electronicarts.co.uk/battlefield-bad-company-2-pc/1350772-so-how-about-modtools.html[/url]
I assume this is rather similar for Frostbite 2.0.[/QUOTE]
Thanks, that actually explains just how complicated games are getting. It's okay though, there are a ton of devs out there that still use the older style engine methods and streamlined tools. So the modding community on PC will still have assets available to them through those games.
Also, unrelated.
But I can forsee 2011 being a great year for PC Gamers. Thus proving the PC market is still a thriving fantastic platform. Going to see a lot of games coming out that put current hardware to the test. I am now saving for a decent gaming rig.
[editline]8th February 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=FuzzyPoop;27947993]4 classes has an actual purpose other than making the medic nearly useless outside hardcore.[/QUOTE]
The engineer was pretty useless. I'd still rather see them go with the same classes that where available in BF2. But that's purely based on nostalgia.
[QUOTE=Erebus.;27942827]Just because there should be medics on your team, doesn't mean that there will be.[/QUOTE]
people who don't play medic than bitch about there being no medics
[editline]9th February 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sharp_Shooter;27947446]I've never been so hyped up for a game so early in development. I'm already sure this game is going to earn a lot of GotY awards.[/QUOTE]
So early in development? This has been at least in pre production stages since BF2.
[QUOTE=Sean C;27944883]Eh I'm not so sure this will be the battlefield we've all been waiting for. It'll be a step in the right direction, but so far it seems they're pushing away the complexity and depth that PC gamers prefer over console gamers.[/QUOTE]
People need to stop thinking that console gamers are retarded or something and can't handle a game with more than 3 classes or no regenerating health. Blame lazy developers, not console gamers
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;27940843]If DICE has been designing PC exclusive, we would have had BF3 3 years ago, easily.
Frostbite is looking good, no doubt, but none of this stuff you guys are jaw-slacking to is anything particularly new. Everything they've shown in their technology trailer has been in UE 3 for quite some time, and almost all of it was in Bad Company 1&2, need I remind you Bad Company 1 came out [I]3 years ago[/I]. If Battlefield 3 had been made 3 years ago (instead of bad company) you'd be seeing basically the same thing you are seeing now, but it wouldn't have been 3 years late.[/QUOTE]
For one thing, UE3 has light mass, but pretty sure not realtime.
[editline]9th February 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=elitehakor v2;27941593]Reminds me of the time me and Brt were in a chopper and Guniv was flying a jet and when we started to ascend Guniv slammed right into us[/QUOTE]
I wish I fucking recorded that. It was one of the most amazing things I've ever experience in BF2.
[QUOTE=Sean C;27944883]they're pushing away the complexity and depth that PC gamers prefer over console gamers.[/QUOTE]
fuckin hipster
[QUOTE=matt54;27948027]
The engineer was pretty useless. I'd still rather see them go with the same classes that where available in BF2. But that's purely based on nostalgia.[/QUOTE]
Was it really, now? Underused I admit, but AT mines were damn good area denial tools (since there was never any defusing engi around) and sneakily placed ones could rack up kills on behalf of careless jeep drivers. It's supposed to be somewhat difficult to play in order for people to pick the more combat-oriented classes; the player distribution is not supposed to be even.
I asked my friend at school if he heard about Battlefield 3 and he said, "Yeah dude, but don't you mean Bad Company 3?"
[QUOTE=hl2poo;27949148]I asked my friend at school if he heard about Battlefield 3 and he said, "Yeah dude, but don't you mean Bad Company 3?"[/QUOTE]
:doh:
[QUOTE=hl2poo;27949148]I asked my friend at school if he heard about Battlefield 3 and he said, "Yeah dude, but don't you mean Bad Company 3?"[/QUOTE]
Stab him.
[QUOTE=hl2poo;27949148]I asked my friend at school if he heard about Battlefield 3 and he said, "Yeah dude, but don't you mean Bad Company 3?"[/QUOTE]
you should stop being his friend
PS if you rated me agree you are a bad person
A while ago I remember seeing a post in this thread recommending some mod/s that increase the IQ of the bf2142 bots. If anyone remembers the mod or link to it, it would be greatly appreciated.
As long as this plays like BF2 and not like a BC game, take my money
Battlefield 2 came out 6 years ago and I'm still playing it vanilla.
Battlefield Bad Company 2 came out last year and I've already stopped playing it and finished every aspect of it, DLC included.
64 player bit gives me a ensurance that it won't be like shit company 2, vietnam was good tho.
I don't actually mind the absence of modability, by the sounds of things this game will stand on its own two legs, as BF2 has.
Good to see they are bringing hardcore back, shooting someone three times in the back and having him turn around and shoot you in the head is bad enough, but when you factor into it bad hit registration it becomes a nightmare.
[editline]9th February 2011[/editline]
[url]http://forums.electronicarts.co.uk/battlefield-3-pc/1389796-dice-please-dont-use-punkbuster-bf3.html[/url]
Some people are actually defending Punkbuster. Are you fucking kidding me?
[QUOTE=acds;27950184]Good to see they are bringing hardcore back, shooting someone three times in the back and having him turn around and shoot you in the head is bad enough, but when you factor into it bad hit registration it becomes a nightmare.[/QUOTE]
Only way I'm playing hardcore if they add regenerative health systems in BF2.
Also, why would people want to defend something so blatantly dumb?
[QUOTE=Spetzaz;27950372]Only way I'm playing hardcore if they add regenerative health systems in BF2.
Also, why would people want to defend something so blatantly dumb?[/QUOTE]
Because they think that VAC works like it did in MW2.
I found hardcore in BC2 to be a lot of fun. Apart from some of the more cramped maps.
It's the joy of not having to waste a whole magazine to kill one enemy.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
