Battlefield 3 Will Get Extra PC Attention

[Crispy]

The folks at ggmania report that a couple weeks ago DICE Senior Gameplay Designer, Alan 'Demize99' Kertz tweeted that him as well as other Bad Company 2 and Battlefield 2 veterans are working on Battlefield 3. Aside from that, Mr. Kertz also made a post in the EA UK forums explaining how weapons were tweaked on console and PC in Bad Company 2. He talks about how PC needs special attention and intends to give it just that.
Early on BFBC2 our PC playtest feedback showed that weapon feeling was lacking. It just wasn't as much fun to shoot the guns on PC as on console. With controls being the big gameplay difference (mouse vs pad) it quickly became clear that simply put the original weapon tweaks, which were done on the PS3, weren't working on PC. The guns all had a bit of base inaccuracy, that with a gamepad wasn't really noteworthy, but on PC it really prevented players from taking advantage of the mouse input. On 2142 one of the key things about the guns is that they were all deadly accurate, they lost damage over range sure, but if you could put the crosshairs on the target you could hit it. Sure, some people feel like an AR should be more accurate than an SMG or carbine. I feel like the issue is "ARs should be better at range" and thus, they do better damage over range than the SMGs.
In response to the feedback on PC, I completely retweaked the accuracy. The next playtest it was immediately obvious that it was a change for the better, and surprisingly it also made gamepads feel much better as well.
Fundamentally I think it is an error to have different core gameplay on console vs PCs. PC gives a player more input control and if a gun feels good on PC it feels good on console. I won't "dumb it down" by lowering the recoil or changing the damage model or other such silliness.
PC and Console Battlefield players want similar gameplay: Epic sprawling Battlefields, and also tight infantry fights. Balanced weapons and land/sea/air vehicles with a rock-paper-scissors emphasis. Squad and teamplay, where no one player can be a do-it-all super soldier, and communications systems to support teamplay. And a deep and rewarding system of progression with deep and varied gameplay that keeps you wanting to go 1 more round. Everyone also wants it to be easy to play with their friends.
Consoles generally are less tolerant of overly complex interfaces. They have less buttons, you need more elegant interfaces. Deep systems work well though if they have a straight forward interface. The fun is not in figuring out how to use the system, it's in figuring out how to best use the system.
PC players have their own set of requirements. They tend to play only on PC, and they know their PCs have capabilities beyond that of a console. The gap is narrowing, but PCs still have a clear advantage in memory. PC players also demand a PC interface, a server browser, and anything that feels like it might have been "ported" from a console is going to get flamed hard. They are more forgiving of complex systems and will tear any design down into its parts to really figure out how it works. It's a damn sight harder to please a PC player, they have higher expectations.
It's too early to talk BF3 specifics. But it's never too early for me to acknowledge that PC players have a fear that BF3 will be "consolized." PC gaming is alive and well, BFBC2 has proven that and no one at DICE or EA can argue with the numbers. Battlefield 3 needs an extra bit of special attention on the PC. I intend to give it that attention, tradition and our community demand it.

Source: Battlefield 3 Will Get Extra PC Attention

 

[mickey megabyte]

well, let's hope the article is 'truth' and not 'marketing'.

while i do enjoy bc2 (made captain last week), it does still really feel like a console port, and lacks pc-game features.

so what does it lack, compared to the five year old bf2, let's say?

proper use of PC-specific functions - for example, Prt Scrn key should save a screenshot

customisation of your shortcuts with a whole bunch of command-line parameters, enabling auto-login to an account, setting-up an unsupported screen-res, auto-join a server, skip opening advert movies (why watch adverts for the game you've already got?) etc

you could communicate to your team-mates a lot better, including saying 'thanks' when they revived you, for example.

much much bigger maps - you even had jets to fly around.

each team could have an overall commander, who general-ly didn't take part in the fighting, but kept his eye on the big picture talking to individual squad leaders and slamming down artillery strikes.

with bf2 there were many mods available - bringing new weapons, maps and ideas to the base game - AIX being one of my faves. i am unaware of any bc2 mods.

last, but certainly not least, oh no: battlerecorder - bf2 servers save demo files - so you could download a whole game that you played and watch it back, focusing on any player you liked. you could then use fraps to record clips, and eventually make whole 'movies' of in-game action. i made a few myself, but they aren't online at the moment, only on my hard drive.

there's probably a few things i left out, but anyway, really looking forward to bf3! (although i said that about civ v )

 

[Crispy]

That's a reason why I didn't play BC2 because it didn't contain jets it looked too good be true and it did look like a another FarCry2 game.

 

[stormy13]

He also posted it on the EA UK forum,,

Demize99 working on BF3 - Page 4 - Electronic Arts UK Community

then promptly got ripped a new one for one comment he made,

Consoles generally are less tolerant of overly complex interfaces. They have less buttons, you need more elegant interfaces. Deep systems work well though if they have a straight forward interface. The fun is not in figuring out how to use the system, it's in figuring out how to best use the system.
PC players have their own set of requirements. They tend to play only on PC, and they know their PCs have capabilities beyond that of a console. The gap is narrowing, but PCs still have a clear advantage in memory. PC players also demand a PC interface, a server browser, and anything that feels like it might have been "ported" from a console is going to get flamed hard. They are more forgiving of complex systems and will tear any design down into its parts to really figure out how it works. It's a damn sight harder to please a PC player, they have higher expectations.

Unless he was trying to imply keyboard and mouse coming to consoles, he rightly so deserved it too.

 

[Skulblaka]

Loved the game, it's great that PC players will get a little attention.

 

[stormy13]

In case no one read that EA forum thread to the end,

Twitter / Alan Kertz: @Blond3r 64 players is a t ...

64 players is a technical limitation not a cost limitation. Save maybe testing. I think it's viable on PC. Console is tougher.

Looks like BF3 may very well be a step backwards, or as most fear nothing more than another console port.

 

[Crispy]

YAY

 

[holo88]

The game isn't balanced for 'lean'........... lol.

I never got into the Battlefield series, Played the first one till my eyes bled, but thats it. I guess it's good to see that they (hopefully) aren't skimping on the pc version. (like FAR too many games do, now-a-days) Its true, consoles hold pcs back in the game department. Usually, if it isn't a PC exclusive, it's usually an inferior butchered port. (bioshock 2 anyone?) /rant

good read. by which i mean it caught my attention, and actually forced me to read it. lol