Stop Hyping "Frostbite Engine 2.0"

[QUOTE="TailBlood"]

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"] The destruction was not nerfed, the mechanics, quality and overall scale are still vastly improved from BC2. I'm so sorry that you seem to think that having scripted events on some small houses is comparable to what is in BF3 and because they don't allow you to fell entire apartment buildings that it is somehow worse. Not to mention DICE never even claimed that you could destroy everything, they have always said you could never destroy all the buildings for gameplay reasons.ferret-gamer

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"][QUOTE="TailBlood"]Sorry, but improving from BC2 isn't a big thing. I was hoping that the mechanics improved from BF2.

TailBlood

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"][QUOTE="TailBlood"]Nice paragraph. Too bad it's pointless. Innitially this was a big "omg buildings crumble" for pc gamers. Now your trying to add all excuses to defend it. Fact is, a promised feature was nerfed.

TailBlood

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"][QUOTE="TailBlood"]Sorry, but improving from BC2 isn't a big thing. I was hoping that the mechanics improved from BF2.

TailBlood

[QUOTE="TailBlood"]

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"] Battlefield 2 had no destruction at all :?SoraX64

[QUOTE="SoraX64"][QUOTE="TailBlood"]Did it have as many classes as Bf3? I bet it was less.

TailBlood

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"][QUOTE="TailBlood"]Sorry, but improving from BC2 isn't a big thing. I was hoping that the mechanics improved from BF2.

TailBlood

They show off a map in PARIS and people are expecting the entire map to be destructible?! :? *facepalm*-RocBoys9489-

[QUOTE="lawlessx"]

[QUOTE="TailBlood"]Sorry, but improving from BC2 isn't a big thing. I was hoping that the mechanics improved from BF2.

TailBlood

And this is where you fail :lol:

thanks i try:D

points were givin to you as to why fulldestruction wouldn't work well in BF3 by other posters and you have simply ignored them,nitpick, and repeat yourself. You then state that you were hoping for the mechanics from BF2 to have been improved when it clearly have been. :?

I want to see a proper gameplay video of the multiplayer first before assuming thingsblangenakker

[QUOTE="blangenakker"]I want to see a proper gameplay video of the multiplayer first before assuming things-RocBoys9489-

The beta is only 2 months away!!!!!

Seriously? This ****ing **** AGAIN?

Destruction was not nerfed. It was just changed to preserve DESIGN. Building can still be leveled, just not EVERY building. That means that DICE gets the best of both worlds. They get the destruction that brings so much to the game, but they also get to keep the control that a non-destructible environment brings(and thus the balance and quality).

Can a mod please close this thread before it spawns another 200 hundred just like it?

[QUOTE="-RocBoys9489-"][QUOTE="blangenakker"]I want to see a proper gameplay video of the multiplayer first before assuming thingsChubbyGuy40

The beta is only 2 months away!!!!!

[QUOTE="-RocBoys9489-"][QUOTE="blangenakker"]I want to see a proper gameplay video of the multiplayer first before assuming thingsChubbyGuy40

The beta is only 2 months away!!!!!

[QUOTE="SoraX64"][QUOTE="TailBlood"]

http://news.tgn.tv/battlefield-3-destruction-is-getting-nerfed/

There is the link, for the fanboys. Hoping to now see "I don't care, it wasn't needed" comments.

TailBlood

Dude shut up....

Well do you even know how the engine works and what features does it have? Because if you don't I think you're not really in a position to criticize it, no offense.

So now that the Battlefield 3 Engine's destruction (the main attention of the engine) is getting nerfed to a lower level than Frostbite 1.0, there really is no reason to hype the engine so people can stop now. The only real difference from BC2 on PC is they added Motion blur options and the only difference in Console version is the added MLAA support? Im talking about the Engine here, Not the gameplay....which should still be fun

rich-sac

Battlefield 3 looks and runs better than the Samaritan Tech Demo from Epic. The visuals that currently has... I think that PS4 and Xbox 720 will not be able to replicate that in the incoming next generation of consoles.

[QUOTE="rich-sac"]

So now that the Battlefield 3 Engine's destruction (the main attention of the engine) is getting nerfed to a lower level than Frostbite 1.0, there really is no reason to hype the engine so people can stop now. The only real difference from BC2 on PC is they added Motion blur options and the only difference in Console version is the added MLAA support? Im talking about the Engine here, Not the gameplay....which should still be fun

Ondoval

Battlefield 3 looks and runs better than the Samaritan Tech Demo from Epic. The visuals that currently has... I think that PS4 and Xbox 720 will not be able to replicate that in the incoming next generation of consoles.

Well I think BF3 will be much like BF2 was when the next-gen consoles come. It'll still look good but not exactly next-gen.

Battlefield 3 looks and runs better than the Samaritan Tech Demo from Epic. The visuals that currently has... I think that PS4 and Xbox 720 will not be able to replicate that in the incoming next generation of consoles.

Ondoval

IMO that Samaritan tech demo was just as good, if not even better, than BF3. Next-gen consoles won't even be able to replicate the cloak from Samaritan, because PhysX will rip apart any AMD GPU no matter how powerful. :P

Well I think BF3 will be much like BF2 was when the next-gen consoles come. It'll still look good but not exactly next-gen.

nameless12345

Battlefield 2 was the whole reason I got into PC gaming just because how good it looks! It's quite sad when it has gun models that are still as good as today's. IMO, it even outdoes some of Bad Company 2's gun models. It's animation and lack of map detail are what make it look dated. BF2 ushered in this gen and I expect BF3 to do the same for next :D

BattleFailed 3 confirmed

Golden_Boy187

You obviously never paid attention or probably even read articles about how BF3 will work. You can go back to playing MW1 for the fourth time now.

BattleFailed 3 confirmed

Golden_Boy187

cool go back to a ten year old engine that direly needs a rocket up its tail pipe.Sure its well optimized because it was essentially built for systems bout 10 years ago.Theres the new ID tech engines now :S

[QUOTE="TailBlood"]

http://news.tgn.tv/battlefield-3-destruction-is-getting-nerfed/

There is the link, for the fanboys. Hoping to now see "I don't care, it wasn't needed" comments.

ferret-gamer

But what is the point of destruction then? If I have enemies hiding in buildings blocking my way to an objective, I sure as hell want to be able to blow those buildings up and bury my enemies under a pile of rubble. Bad Company 2 had collapseable buildings, and I never really saw this as an issue- if the map gets torn to shreds because of artillery, so be it. The whole attraction behind Bad Company 2 was the gameplay, which forced you to adapt to the dynamically changing environment. This is definitely a step-down in my opinion.

[QUOTE="Golden_Boy187"]

BattleFailed 3 confirmed

razgriz_101

cool go back to a ten year old engine that direly needs a rocket up its tail pipe.Sure its well optimized because it was essentially built for systems bout 10 years ago.Theres the new ID tech engines now :S

The fact that Activision hasn't made them move to something much more advanced and better, such as UE3, only speaks to how much Activision gives a damn about their franchise.

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"][QUOTE="TailBlood"]

http://news.tgn.tv/battlefield-3-destruction-is-getting-nerfed/

There is the link, for the fanboys. Hoping to now see "I don't care, it wasn't needed" comments.

Vari3ty

But what is the point of destruction then? If I have enemies hiding in buildings blocking my way to an objective, I sure as hell want to be able to blow those buildings up and bury my enemies under a pile of rubble. Bad Company 2 had collapseable buildings, and I never really saw this as an issue- if the map gets torn to shreds because of artillery, so be it. The whole attraction behind Bad Company 2 was the gameplay, which forced you to adapt to the dynamically changing environment. This is definitely a step-down in my opinion.

But what is the point of destruction then? If I have enemies hiding in buildings blocking my way to an objective, I sure as hell want to be able to blow those buildings up and bury my enemies under a pile of rubble. Bad Company 2 had collapseable buildings, and I never really saw this as an issue- if the map gets torn to shreds because of artillery, so be it. The whole attraction behind Bad Company 2 was the gameplay, which forced you to adapt to the dynamically changing environment. This is definitely a step-down in my opinion.

Vari3ty

You still get to blow holes in the wall, and now you even get to shoot down debris that will kill enemies. Yes blowing up a giant building would be awesome, but it'd change the map in ways DICE feels it would cause an imbalance (And damn straight it would.) BC2 had small 2-story shacks with PREDETERMINED/scripted destruction. Battlefield 3 does not. Sorry but bringing down HUGE towers and buildings would simply be way too much. The only "dynamically" changing environment was Rush because...that was the point of it. Conquest never changed at all.

[QUOTE="Vari3ty"]

But what is the point of destruction then? If I have enemies hiding in buildings blocking my way to an objective, I sure as hell want to be able to blow those buildings up and bury my enemies under a pile of rubble. Bad Company 2 had collapseable buildings, and I never really saw this as an issue- if the map gets torn to shreds because of artillery, so be it. The whole attraction behind Bad Company 2 was the gameplay, which forced you to adapt to the dynamically changing environment. This is definitely a step-down in my opinion.

ChubbyGuy40

You still get to blow holes in the wall, and now you even get to shoot down debris that will kill enemies. Yes blowing up a giant building would be awesome, but it'd change the map in ways DICE feels it would cause an imbalance (And damn straight it would.) BC2 had small 2-story shacks with PREDETERMINED/scripted destruction. Battlefield 3 does not. Sorry but bringing down HUGE towers and buildings would simply be way too much. The only "dynamically" changing environment was Rush because...that was the point of it. Conquest never changed at all.

I suppose you're right. I guess I had not taken the size of the buildings into account... are there really going to be tall buildings (like 10 or so stories high) in multiplayer?

[QUOTE="Ondoval"]

Battlefield 3 looks and runs better than the Samaritan Tech Demo from Epic. The visuals that currently has... I think that PS4 and Xbox 720 will not be able to replicate that in the incoming next generation of consoles.

ChubbyGuy40

IMO that Samaritan tech demo was just as good, if not even better, than BF3. Next-gen consoles won't even be able to replicate the cloak from Samaritan, because PhysX will rip apart any AMD GPU no matter how powerful. :P

Physx doesn't run on AMD GPU's it will default to the CPU, but AMD gpus are perfectly capable of running physics simulations, look at openCL or DX11 physics compute. And APEX cloth actually runs quite well on CPU, after getting a 6950 i booted up one of my UDK maps with multiple instances of APEX cloth and it ran without a hitch on my lower end athlon quad. :Pferret-gamer

I know that, but I was just taking a jab at consoles and AMD. :P

Go boot up Mafia 2 and Batman AA :P Mafia 2 uses APEX quite extensively but it's not nearly as good as the Samaritan demos (The animation demos, not the trailer.) I can't run PhysX on either with a i3-2100 and 6850 without it going under 10FPS.

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"] Physx doesn't run on AMD GPU's it will default to the CPU, but AMD gpus are perfectly capable of running physics simulations, look at openCL or DX11 physics compute. And APEX cloth actually runs quite well on CPU, after getting a 6950 i booted up one of my UDK maps with multiple instances of APEX cloth and it ran without a hitch on my lower end athlon quad. :PChubbyGuy40

I know that, but I was just taking a jab at consoles and AMD. :P

Go boot up Mafia 2 and Batman AA :P Mafia 2 uses APEX quite extensively but it's not nearly as good as the Samaritan demos (The animation demos, not the trailer.) I can't run PhysX on either with a i3-2100 and 6850 without it going under 10FPS.

Oh yeah games with taxing physx as a whole couldn't be run with a CPU, but a CPU could handle the clothing simulations by themselves fine.ferret-gamer

I just learned something today. Geeze thanks, was trying to have the dumb and not learn today. Damn internet can be so cruel. :P

[QUOTE="razgriz_101"]

[QUOTE="Golden_Boy187"]

BattleFailed 3 confirmed

ChubbyGuy40

cool go back to a ten year old engine that direly needs a rocket up its tail pipe.Sure its well optimized because it was essentially built for systems bout 10 years ago.Theres the new ID tech engines now :S

The fact that Activision hasn't made them move to something much more advanced and better, such as UE3, only speaks to how much Activision gives a damn about their franchise.

What i find is funny is people say that there would be gameplay changes if they moved to a new engine xD UE3 could push probably bigger maps, more detailed and varied maps aswell along with a much better animation system hopefully and decent physics in a sense, on top of having a much better optimization overall for PC and the consoles cause UE3 has evolved a lot itself.Aswell as more than likely cutting a lot of dev costs,easy to work with tools and all the rest of it.

Baffles me why they havent shifted, considering it could actually cut them some cost aswell lol.

Wow so Frostbite Engine 2.0 is being hyped for improving on lighting, details, particle effects, water, etc......Just like Unreal 3.5, Cryengine3, etc. But there is something very special about the engine that people Hype to the Max and get super excited about. The God engine?

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"][QUOTE="TailBlood"]

http://news.tgn.tv/battlefield-3-destruction-is-getting-nerfed/

There is the link, for the fanboys. Hoping to now see "I don't care, it wasn't needed" comments.

TailBlood

It's a really nice looking engine and so are a lot of other engines out there but why are the hating and zOmg you noob don't hype it nubz. blah blah blah
what's so bad about it that people can't praise it?

[QUOTE="rich-sac"]

So now that the Battlefield 3 Engine's destruction (the main attention of the engine) is getting nerfed to a lower level than Frostbite 1.0, there really is no reason to hype the engine so people can stop now. The only real difference from BC2 on PC is they added Motion blur options and the only difference in Console version is the added MLAA support? Im talking about the Engine here, Not the gameplay....which should still be fun

ChubbyGuy40

1. No it's not. It's what we've been seeing. They just aren't allowing buildings to collaspe anymore.

2. Yes. The engine is a graphical BEAST and will easily be the best looking game (on PC of course. Consoles could never handle it.) That's just the icing though. The real cake is the Battlefield gameplay, which is by far the best of any FPS. They use much more advanced lighting, physics, sound has been improved even further, EXCELLENT animation engine from EA Sports, and more.

It's not getting nerfed. That was a stupid over-statement by IGN. When asked the BF3 developer clearly states "D2.0 is not gone. Not at all."

Now you can't raze every single building in the big urban maps but you'll beable to level smaller buildings.

I hope nobody ever thought you could level all of the major urban maps. That's just silly.

Wow so Frostbite Engine 2.0 is being hyped for improving on lighting, details, particle effects, water, etc......Just like Unreal 3.5, Cryengine3, etc. But there is something very special about the engine that people Hype to the Max and get super excited about. The God engine?

rich-sac

Seriously, who's hyping this? I haven't seen anyone make a thread about "the almighty" Frosbite 2.0.

So now that the Battlefield 3 Engine's destruction (the main attention of the engine) is getting nerfed to a lower level than Frostbite 1.0, there really is no reason to hype the engine so people can stop now. The only real difference from BC2 on PC is they added Motion blur options and the only difference in Console version is the added MLAA support? Im talking about the Engine here, Not the gameplay....which should still be fun

rich-sac

[QUOTE="rich-sac"]

Wow so Frostbite Engine 2.0 is being hyped for improving on lighting, details, particle effects, water, etc......Just like Unreal 3.5, Cryengine3, etc. But there is something very special about the engine that people Hype to the Max and get super excited about. The God engine?

el3m2tigre

Seriously, who's hyping this? I haven't seen anyone make a thread about "the almighty" Frosbite 2.0.

scuttles off to create such a thread :P

Dice can do no wrong on this forum, all the faults of battlefield 3 are being overlooked and the game and engine are being hyped through the roof. The sad thing is the gunplay looks to be the same as Bad company 2 which was ok but not great imodom2000

[QUOTE="Iantheone"][QUOTE="ferret-gamer"] "outside of scripted moments in singleplayer and possible hard-coded objectives in multiplayer." There is nothing saying that they won't have scripted destruction like what you describe, but just letting everything be destroyed at the players whim would ruin the game in so many different ways.ferret-gamer

Imagine you have a map where one side is trying to get to a capture point in a large city, at one spot the defending team destroys a line of buildings, and then takes cover in the the multistory buildings behind that line. Now the advancing team's cover is essentially destroyed, and the defending team has basically set up a kill zone that the attackers would get slaughtered trying to move through.

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"][QUOTE="TailBlood"]Sorry, but improving from BC2 isn't a big thing. I was hoping that the mechanics improved from BF2.

TailBlood