When you look at Battlefield 3 and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 , do you see a significant difference?

According to developer DICE, you should. While many have claimed that the BF3 designer has altered their series to look and play more like the competition, DICE executive producer Patric Bach says they're "not straying away from the [Battlefield] formula." In speaking to Eurogamer TV , he says it's not about looking to CoD or anywhere else to get ideas or new inspiration; it's about internal studio brainstorming.

"It is a very different feeling we're going after. We're not straying away from our own ideas. We are looking at our own stuff, maybe a bit too much at times because sometimes you forget to look at what everyone else is doing. But of course it adds a lot of pressure when people's expectations are that maybe we should do something else, rather than doing what we're doing."

Lead game designer David Goldfarb echoes those thoughts and adds that while they didn't set out to be "consciously different," they're going after a "very different feeling" in comparison to MW3. Also, you may notice a particular statement later in the article, where they address the recent cop-shooting controversy. Goldfarb says-

"It's hugely important to us to have single-player as the thing that identifies the tone of the game."

Now see, that we like.

Related Game(s): Battlefield 3

Subscribe
Notify of
22 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Spineshank
Spineshank
9 years ago

I certainly dislike the fact that DICE have greatly reduced building destructibility, most likely to cater to the camping tendencies of Call of Duty players.

daus26
daus26
9 years ago

Is that really true?

TheOldOne
TheOldOne
9 years ago

I could only destroy vehicles. All building destruction is gone on BF3.

Spineshank
Spineshank
9 years ago

Yes, this is true, however not completely removed. Windows are gaping holes with a dose of rocket or grenade.. A counter arguement is that the maps would be reduced a pile of rubble given everything could be destroyed.


Last edited by Spineshank on 10/11/2011 10:20:43 AM

Highlightreel
Highlightreel
9 years ago

I also noticed the limited destruction of buildings in the beta. But isn't that b/c the only (2) real buildings to be destructed were built as part of a city block and were connected to the adjacent buildings (in the last portion of the beta map)? So if you took down the whole building, that part of the map would be just a open area and screw up their level design? Plus, they were multiple story bldgs which would take a lot to collapse. I did see the outer walls come off the areas where players could go so maybe after numerous rocket shots one could take down the whole building but it would take more rocket shots than there was time to launch them?

Stay Classy PSX…

LegendaryWolfeh
LegendaryWolfeh
9 years ago

You know there was hardly any buildings that would be deemed destroyable…in the Beta. Which is a Beta.

Geobaldi
Geobaldi
9 years ago

Though there really wasn't much in the subway map to destroy, the Caspian Border map added later to the PC beta did have a good amount of destroyable buildings. Which was used to my advantage and where I fell victim to at times lol.

Spineshank
Spineshank
9 years ago

My original statement had no reference to the beta, a beta for a game one month out from release.. And yes it is confirmed: a DICE representative said "there were some maps that actually, after a while, if you played very long in the same area, you’d just grind down everything to the bottom, which made it really hard sometimes for, like, the defenders in a rush map,” said Troedsson himself. ”When we see these things, [we think] okay, we have to add some covers that actually are not destructible.“

Snaaaake
Snaaaake
9 years ago

Hmm?
You mean Battlefield 3 is a turn-based JRPG?
*In Irish accent*
"By the Maker!! How could I not know!!!"

Ok jokes aside, I know there will be vehicles and jets in BF3, will there be similar feature in MW3?

daus26
daus26
9 years ago

That's a nice quote. Single player should always set the tone of the game. It's what everyone should go through, and what made games great, back when there was no online.

I actually have quiet a few friends who doesn't really finish the campaign and jumps straight to multi-player. Then again, a lot of people are in it mainly for the online nowadays with these fps games, so I can't really blame them. Right now, trophies are the motives for completing the single player campaign for a lot of my friends, rather than the immersive experience we're suppose to see and feel on them.

I can agree with single player being more important, but for these fps specifically, I believe if gamers had a choice between online or offline, they'd go with online. Maybe we're just at that age?

bigrailer19
bigrailer19
9 years ago

I'm just gonna say this cus it needs to be. I know DICE did the mp for medal of honor and with that said yes BF3 might be different than MW3 but the beta feels so much and looks so much like medal of honor. I like that…

JackDillinger89
JackDillinger89
9 years ago

No destruction? So whats all this hype mumbo jumbo bout dice 2.0? Reducing destructability making it feel more arcady like um… call of duty??

Nas Is Like
Nas Is Like
9 years ago

You mean Frostbite 2.0 engine?

___________
___________
9 years ago

WTF you talking about!?
there was heaps of destruction in the beta!

Nas Is Like
Nas Is Like
9 years ago

lol @ people being mad about destructive environments. I thought this was a first person shooter game, not first person destruction.

Anyway, game is shaping up to be great. I'm really looking forward to it, and I'm glad it's different than Call of Duty. That's what makes it unique and enjoyable, even though I enjoy both experiences.

Underdog15
Underdog15
9 years ago

I'm not sure what's unusual about shooter fans wanting their environments to be affected by the bullets they shoot. Isn't that more realistic?

Nas Is Like
Nas Is Like
9 years ago

Fun is a lot more important than realism.

In other words, I don't care if buildings can be destroyed, as long as the gameplay is fun.

aaronisbla
aaronisbla
9 years ago

they are mad because the destruction aspect was what made bfbc 1 and 2 standout and it added to the fun of the game. Did you play bfbc 1 and 2 nas? destruction is actually a pretty good part of the series since it hit the consoles. It would be like the CoD series totally scaling back on the killstreaks its known for


Last edited by aaronisbla on 10/11/2011 11:15:27 PM

Underdog15
Underdog15
9 years ago

Wouldn't that add more to the gameplay? I don't mean to criticize, as I really don't have a ton of FPS experience beyond a few big name titles.

I just imagine it would be more attractive to have a game where you could, effectively, bazooka out the floor from beneath a person or cause environmental damage like grenades exploding a big rock into smaller rocks that fall or ricochet off people. I just think it might add more to the gameplay, which should always be welcome if it allows people to develop their own unique play styles.

How many sprinting knife-guys are there in CoD that don't die when bullets hit their face as they run at you? That, to me, isn't fun. In fact, the fun can sometimes be ruined by the lack of realism and predictability.

Clamedeus
Clamedeus
9 years ago

I like realism in my games. Although sometimes I don't mind if some don't.

UK_MrSim_UK
UK_MrSim_UK
9 years ago

Pre-ordered BF3, can't wait :DD

___________
___________
9 years ago

yea, sure, will see about that!
the lead producer and community manager will be on the show floor on saturday so ill be sure to grill them.