New Battlefield: Bad Company screens

Since 6443 Days

oh my! o.O

In reply to

Since 6443 Days

i just hope they don't let multiplayer in second plane, and that it maintains the complexity and infinite level of fun as the other previous versions (Bf2, Bf2142). Will surely be looking forward to this single player, but i really look forward is to a good multiplayer experience on the xbox, because since i switched from the pc some months ago, nothing as really been as fullfiling as the multiplayer Battlefield (2, 2142) on the PC (and no, definitely not Halo 3 :/ ...)

In reply to

Since 6983 Days

If you're a Battlefield fan, you may be wondering what the fuss is over a single player game. That isn't what the series has traditionally been about. DICE isn't looking to ignore the online game. Instead, it is expanding the game in an attempt to draw in new players that don't see a multiplayer focused game as worth picking up. We were assured that everything we saw for the single player game would exist in the 24 player online modes.

SOLD. 24 is not 64 (which tend to be too laggy imo), but with all their tech I can live with 24 if well designed. BFBC may be the best looking game I have seen yet, but also the most ambitious. They are right when they took a crack at GOW: They wanted to make a game that could not be done on the Xbox. If they can get the destruction down right, AND online... wow. The next year of FPS is crazy. Battlefield, Brother in Arms, Team Fortress, Call of Duty... some amazing efforts to progress the genre in various ways.

In reply to

The fans have spoken. Concerning the graphics of the Halo 3 Beta: "There's so many little effects and things going on that make this game pretty much 2nd only to Gears at the moment."

Since 6983 Days

Posted by mt_sabao

i just hope they don't let multiplayer in second plane, and that it maintains the complexity and infinite level of fun as the other previous versions (Bf2, Bf2142). Will surely be looking forward to this single player, but i really look forward is to a good multiplayer experience on the xbox, because since i switched from the pc some months ago, nothing as really been as fullfiling as the multiplayer Battlefield (2, 2142) on the PC (and no, definitely not Halo 3 :/ ...)

Overlooking the KB/MS bit for a moment, they did say they were dropping the BF:MC "design" choices for BF Bad Company. GREAT decision IMO. Make it traditional BF. The problem is that it is now 2008, and I am guessing: Fall 2008.

That said the Xbox/PC are getting some good MP games outside of Halo 3, at the tip of my tongue are Quake Wars (BF like game from Splash Damage, makers of the first Enemy Territory), Team Fortress 2 by Valve, Call of Duty 4 by Ininity Ward, and Brother in Arms by GearBox. Those are going to be some good-to-killer MP games.

In reply to

[quote=mt_sabao]i just hope they don't let multiplayer in second plane, and that it maintains the complexity and infinite level of fun as the other previous versions (Bf2, Bf2142). Will surely be looking forward to this single player, but i really look forward is to a good multiplayer experience on the xbox, because since i switched from the pc some months ago, nothing as really been as fullfiling as the multiplayer Battlefield (2, 2142) on the PC (and no, definitely not Halo 3 :/ ...)[/quote]

Overlooking the KB/MS bit for a moment, they did say they were dropping the BF:MC "design" choices for BF Bad Company. GREAT decision IMO. Make it traditional BF. The problem is that it is now 2008, and I am guessing: Fall 2008.

That said the Xbox/PC are getting some good MP games outside of Halo 3, at the tip of my tongue are Quake Wars (BF like game from Splash Damage, makers of the first Enemy Territory), Team Fortress 2 by Valve, Call of Duty 4 by Ininity Ward, and Brother in Arms by GearBox. Those are going to be some good-to-killer MP games.

The fans have spoken. Concerning the graphics of the Halo 3 Beta: "There's so many little effects and things going on that make this game pretty much 2nd only to Gears at the moment."

Inflatable

Since 7650 Days

Posted by Acert93

SOLD. 24 is not 64 (which tend to be too laggy imo), but with all their tech I can live with 24 if well designed.

64 players doesn't have to be laggy at all.. It works perfectly on the PC.. But it requires dedicated servers, and that's something XBL doesn't offer.. Maybe the PS3 version will..

In reply to

http://www.cyberwarriors.nl
http://home.xmsnet.nl/bigbear/fiat124.jpg

deftangel

Since 6880 Days

Some of those screens were in the latest issue of Edge which also ran a feature on the game. Must say looks like it's coming along and it certainly piqued my interest in the game. A good read if you can get a copy.

Funny how EA have got a few interesting things going on yet attract a lot of stick (plenty justified I might add!). There's this, Boogie, Rock Band, Army of Two and a few others in the pipeline I'm sure.

In reply to

Since 6983 Days

Posted by Inflatable

64 players doesn't have to be laggy at all.. It works perfectly on the PC.. But it requires dedicated servers, and that's something XBL doesn't offer.. Maybe the PS3 version will..

Dedicated servers alone aren't even sufficient as 64 player servers are in need of not only high system resources but also great up-/down- stream bandwidth as well as sufficient "access" via the backbone (e.g. a high speed connection in boonsville Montana isn't going to be nearly as good as one in Chicago, New York, Dallas, Atlanta, Seattle, or LA -- all major hubs where there is major convergence of carriers).

I have ran a number of BF, 42 and 2, servers and the resources necessary to get a smooth experience on all of their offerings... yeah, not pretty. Most *dedicated* BF servers in facillities that host 64 player games are laggy (be it insufficient outbound/inbound bandwidth, insufficient memory or proc cycles, etc). Having played for years and frequently a variety of clan TS channels I would say this is nearly universally the experience of everyone I have played with.

We tested quite a few server facilities (interestingly I used to work in the data center industry in the US) for our clan and the cost for getting a solid 64 player server in regards to system resources as well as server/datacenter connectivity was high due to the limited number of folks able to deliver such.

Of course you live in Europe so that may substantially different. But by tracing your IP/Network I can see that you would have a horrible time in my area of the East Coast getting access to a solid server, let alone a 64 player one (not just a horrible ping, but also very erratic packet loss).

I am *not* saying it is impossible. I have played on some nice 64 player LANs. I have also, on rare occassion, found servers that were geographically close and resource adequate and ran well.

But that would be the point: in the US (by far the biggest market for this) this scenario is rare. There are far more crappy 64 player servers out there than good ones. Dare I say most server admins tend to lean toward more people versus capping at the right level for a smooth experience (i.e. the server tanking as it becomes full).

On BFBC, I do wonder how they will be handling dynamic destruction online. If it is truly dynamic they will need to do the damage server side then send the clients the resultant data. Being dynamic if I shoot a wall with a rocket, and send that contact data to 64 clients, it will be different 64 times in terms of fracture points and such.

Anyway they do it they are talking about a significant increase in server processing as well as data tranmission--you have 24 players + all their weapons being fires + [now!] all the building "states and status" as well as the debris. I wouldn't be surprised if they were requiring ded servers. I definately don't see how the Xbox 360 is going to handle this game, with 24 players, on most US connections. While downstream bandwidth is growing, upstream data transmission is the pits in most areas. Most of us are on cable or DSL -- and in many cases most would struggle to serve 12 players of most online games -- so 24 with complex/dynamic environments is going to be interesting to see.

@ Deft: DICE was independant until EA threatened a hostile takeover. So is it fair to call them an EA product? :|

In reply to

[quote=Inflatable]64 players doesn't have to be laggy at all.. It works perfectly on the PC.. But it requires dedicated servers, and that's something XBL doesn't offer.. Maybe the PS3 version will..[/quote]

Dedicated servers alone aren't even sufficient as 64 player servers are in need of not only high system resources but also great up-/down- stream bandwidth as well as sufficient "access" via the backbone (e.g. a high speed connection in boonsville Montana isn't going to be nearly as good as one in Chicago, New York, Dallas, Atlanta, Seattle, or LA -- all major hubs where there is major convergence of carriers).

I have ran a number of BF, 42 and 2, servers and the resources necessary to get a smooth experience on all of their offerings... yeah, not pretty. Most *dedicated* BF servers in facillities that host 64 player games are laggy (be it insufficient outbound/inbound bandwidth, insufficient memory or proc cycles, etc). Having played for years and frequently a variety of clan TS channels I would say this is nearly universally the experience of everyone I have played with.

We tested quite a few server facilities (interestingly I used to work in the data center industry in the US) for our clan and the cost for getting a solid 64 player server in regards to system resources as well as server/datacenter connectivity was high due to the limited number of folks able to deliver such.

Of course you live in Europe so that may substantially different. But by tracing your IP/Network I can see that you would have a horrible time in my area of the East Coast getting access to a solid server, let alone a 64 player one (not just a horrible ping, but also very erratic packet loss).

I am *not* saying it is impossible. I have played on some nice 64 player LANs. I have also, on rare occassion, found servers that were geographically close and resource adequate and ran well.

But that would be the point: in the US (by far the biggest market for this) this scenario is rare. There are far more crappy 64 player servers out there than good ones. Dare I say most server admins tend to lean toward more people versus capping at the right level for a smooth experience (i.e. the server tanking as it becomes full).

On BFBC, I do wonder how they will be handling dynamic destruction online. If it is truly dynamic they will need to do the damage server side then send the clients the resultant data. Being dynamic if I shoot a wall with a rocket, and send that contact data to 64 clients, it will be different 64 times in terms of fracture points and such.

Anyway they do it they are talking about a significant increase in server processing as well as data tranmission--you have 24 players + all their weapons being fires + [now!] all the building "states and status" as well as the debris. I wouldn't be surprised if they were requiring ded servers. I definately don't see how the Xbox 360 is going to handle this game, with 24 players, on most US connections. While downstream bandwidth is growing, upstream data transmission is the pits in most areas. Most of us are on cable or DSL -- and in many cases most would struggle to serve 12 players of most online games -- so 24 with complex/dynamic environments is going to be interesting to see.

@ Deft: DICE was independant until EA threatened a hostile takeover. So is it fair to call them an EA product? :|

The fans have spoken. Concerning the graphics of the Halo 3 Beta: "There's so many little effects and things going on that make this game pretty much 2nd only to Gears at the moment."

alimokrane

Since 6942 Days

I hate to be a party pooper but like any EA game this would end up looking less impressive than those screens but EA is more than welcome to prove me wrongf. We will see but I aint getting excited yet. /crosses fingers!

In reply to

Blue Dragon - Lost Odyssey - Eternal Sonata - Final Fantasy XIII - Cry On - Ninja Gaiden 2 - Heavenly Sword - Assassin's Creed - Devil May Cry 4 - Resident Evil 5 - Naruto 360 - Mass Effect - Alan Wake - Too Human -Infinite Undiscovery

Since 6983 Days

Posted by alimokrane

I hate to be a party pooper but like any EA game this would end up looking less impressive than those screens but EA is more than welcome to prove me wrongf. We will see but I aint getting excited yet. /crosses fingers!

The game has already been seen running on the 360 in realtime and it looked that good. There is a vid running around, the cutscene, that is a direct feed from the 360.

In reply to

The fans have spoken. Concerning the graphics of the Halo 3 Beta: "There's so many little effects and things going on that make this game pretty much 2nd only to Gears at the moment."

Since 7012 Days

I'm not a big fan of the console BF games, but this is looking pretty good. BF2 would never work on consoles.. so they're doing something different. That's okay with me.

I'm waiting for BF3 though. Please DICE, pretty please? 2142 will make your triumphant return that much sweeter.

Oh.. and 24 players is good.. how come ET can't manage that on consoles.. the game is only 24 players on PC.

In reply to

Phaethon360

Since 6858 Days

Do want!

In reply to

[Halo 3] - [Mass Effect] - [GTA IV] - [Assassin's Creed]

Since 6443 Days

Posted by GriftGFX

BF2 would never work on consoles.. so they're doing something different. That's okay with me.

Care to elaborate? Lack of the speed of the Kb/m? Can't see why. It would me much slower i guess, is that what you mean?

In reply to

Since 7012 Days

Posted by mt_sabao

Care to elaborate? Lack of the speed of the Kb/m? Can't see why. It would me much slower i guess, is that what you mean?

It just has a pretty complex interface for an FPS game, which isn't that typical on consoles.. I guess they could streamline some things, but the game can be a handful (movement mostly) on the keyboard too. It'd be a different game already, so I think this approach makes the most sense. Just make a different game.

Quake Wars and Frontlines will probably be a bit more suited to console schemes since they were both being developed with that in mind from the beginning. After played ETQW I do think movement will be a bit clunkier on the pad.. but it'll probably work.

In reply to

Since 6443 Days

let' see then, let's see.

In reply to

anm8rjp

Since 7709 Days

Great looking tech video showcasing the destructible environments in Battlefield Bad Company.

More info revealed. Impressive looking tech demo. This one is at the forefront of my 2008 radar.

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/842/842156p1.html

In reply to

KORNdog

Since 6416 Days

visually its very nice, but from what i've seen of the gamplay it seems to play like modern combat...which isnt great, everything looked very "big" and clunky....its hard to explain. it lacks fluidity i guess, and i dont mean from a technical standpoint like framerate (although its not looking very slooth there either) it just looks cumbersome to me. i dunno, we'll see.

In reply to

Since 7012 Days

Well, it is Modern Combat 2. It just has a campaign, some character, and destructible environments. Oh, and hype.

In reply to

Milhouse

Since 6417 Days

Posted by GriftGFX

Well, it is Modern Combat 2. It just has a campaign, some character, and destructible environments. Oh, and hype.

What hype are you talking about? Compared to CoD4 there is virtually no hype at all.
And BF MC has had a campaign. Just there were not as many cut scenes as in CoD4 or there were no pseudo squad doesn't mean there were no campaign at all.
One of the main features of the MC campaign was that you can play all your team-mates by transfering control from one character to another. So you have to make choices how to best utilize all you team-mates to complete the objectives.

In reply to

Since 7012 Days

Posted by Milhouse

What hype are you talking about? Compared to CoD4 there is virtually no hype at all.
And BF MC has had a campaign. Just there were not as many cut scenes as in CoD4 or there were no pseudo squad doesn't mean there were no campaign at all.
One of the main features of the MC campaign was that you can play all your team-mates by transfering control from one character to another. So you have to make choices how to best utilize all you team-mates to complete the objectives.

There's plenty of relative hype, compared to the first installment in the series. And I think it's pretty obvious that the campaign here is more of a focal point than it was in the first Modern Combat.. they're dressing it up with loads of character and I would imagine a better story to back it up. It's all relative--compared to Halo 3--Call of Duty has virtually no hype at all. It doesn't mean that there's no hype.

What matters (to me) is that the class model closely resembles BFMC, and that it lacks the things that made BF2 a leap forward for the franchise. Bad Company should please fans of Modern Combat, or people looking for a simple approach to class based FPS on consoles.. but I'm waiting for DICE to reveal the goods on BF3 myself.

In reply to

[quote=Milhouse]

What hype are you talking about? Compared to CoD4 there is virtually no hype at all. 
And BF MC has had a campaign. Just there were not as many cut scenes as in CoD4 or there were no pseudo squad doesn't mean there were no campaign at all. 
One of the main features of the MC campaign was that you can play all your team-mates by transfering control from one character to another. So you have to make choices how to best utilize all you team-mates to complete the objectives.[/quote]

There's plenty of relative hype, compared to the first installment in the series.  And I think it's pretty obvious that the campaign here is more of a focal point than it was in the first Modern Combat.. they're dressing it up with loads of character and I would imagine a better story to back it up.  It's all relative--compared to Halo 3--Call of Duty has virtually no hype at all.  It doesn't mean that there's no hype.

What matters (to me) is that the class model closely resembles BFMC, and that it lacks the things that made BF2 a leap forward for the franchise.  Bad Company should please fans of Modern Combat, or people looking for a simple approach to class based FPS on consoles.. but I'm waiting for DICE to reveal the goods on BF3 myself.

Inflatable

Since 7650 Days

Posted by Acert93

Dedicated servers alone aren't even sufficient as 64 player servers are in need of not only high system resources but also great up-/down- stream bandwidth as well as sufficient "access" via the backbone (e.g. a high speed connection in boonsville Montana isn't going to be nearly as good as one in Chicago, New York, Dallas, Atlanta, Seattle, or LA -- all major hubs where there is major convergence of carriers).

Well, that's obvious isn't it.. But I can assure you that I can run a dedicated 64 player server at my home easily.. I have a 2nd PC (E6400, 2GB system) that can run it, and I have a FTH 24Mbit connection that has plenty bandwidth to even run multiple 64 player servers if I wanted to.. My ISP (like most Dutch ISP's) also has a direct connection to the AMS-IX (ping 1ms for me), which is the biggest internet-exchange in the world with the most direct peers to bassicly everywhere.. But offcourse you're not gonna play on a server that is to far away because of a higher ping, that's why you always try and find a fast local server.. I can bassicly play on any North-Western European server with pings under 20-30ms, which is obviously good enough to play virtually lagfree.. UK, Germany, France, Scandinavia, Benelux, you name it, plenty of good fast servers arround.. East coast USA gives me ping 80-100ms, but why would I want to play on far away US servers anyway?

So I don't know what hardware or connections the servers you ran were on, but 64 players lagfree shouldn't be a problem at all if you have the right resources, and all the players on it are not to far away.. For XBL that's where proper matchmaking should come in, searching the best local server possible..

In reply to

[quote=Acert93]Dedicated servers alone aren't even sufficient as 64 player servers are in need of not only high system resources but also great up-/down- stream bandwidth as well as sufficient "access" via the backbone (e.g. a high speed connection in boonsville Montana isn't going to be nearly as good as one in Chicago, New York, Dallas, Atlanta, Seattle, or LA -- all major hubs where there is major convergence of carriers).[/quote]Well, that's obvious isn't it.. But I can assure you that I can run a dedicated 64 player server at my home easily.. I have a 2nd PC (E6400, 2GB system) that can run it, and I have a FTH 24Mbit connection that has plenty bandwidth to even run multiple 64 player servers if I wanted to.. My ISP (like most Dutch ISP's) also has a direct connection to the AMS-IX (ping 1ms for me), which is the biggest internet-exchange in the world with the most direct peers to bassicly everywhere.. But offcourse you're not gonna play on a server that is to far away because of a higher ping, that's why you always try and find a fast local server.. I can bassicly play on any North-Western European server with pings under 20-30ms, which is obviously good enough to play virtually lagfree..  UK, Germany, France, Scandinavia, Benelux, you name it, plenty of good fast servers arround.. East coast USA gives me ping 80-100ms, but why would I want to play on far away US servers anyway?

So I don't know what hardware or connections the servers you ran were on, but 64 players lagfree shouldn't be a problem at all if you have the right resources, and all the players on it are not to far away.. For XBL that's where proper matchmaking should come in, searching the best local server possible..

http://www.cyberwarriors.nl
http://home.xmsnet.nl/bigbear/fiat124.jpg

Milhouse

Since 6417 Days

Posted by GriftGFX

There's plenty of relative hype, compared to the first installment in the series.

Hype doestn't mean advertising or bringing some dev videos. You could pull a game through the whole media landscape, but if it gets overall bad ratings there is absolutly no hype. Hype means that a very high amount of people are convinced of product, even if they never used it. Because there is virtually no advertising of Bad Company nor are there any previews around i wouldn't talk about hype at all.

And I think it's pretty obvious that the campaign here is more of a focal point than it was in the first Modern Combat..

This is certainly the case. Bad Company will have a more deep/well shaped campaign. But that doesn't mean that Modern Combat had no campaign. Modern Combat didn't deliver such an intense campaign than CoD4, but it delivered a very very large campaign with lots of objectives (much larger than the campaign of CoD4).

they're dressing it up with loads of character and I would imagine a better story to back it up.

I don't know the storry of Bad Company, but from all the videos i think this is a very great and thought-provoking storry. You know, there are lots of private little war companies in iraq that are paid by the us government. Or lets say security companies to be political correct :D There are lots of reports where these private war companies killed civillians (either accidantly or deliberately), but are not called to account (because they officially don't belong the the us forces).
Those Bad Company videos reflects this issues on a very ironc way.

It's all relative--compared to Halo 3--Call of Duty has virtually no hype at all. It doesn't mean that there's no hype.

I don't agree. CoD4 was THE game on E3 2006, it was more hyped than HALO 3 or Killzone 2. HALO 3 may have a bigger advertising campaign, but i wouldn't say the hype is bigger than CoD4. Maybe a little more, but not really worth to mention.

What matters (to me) is that the class model closely resembles BFMC, and that it lacks the things that made BF2 a leap forward for the franchise. Bad Company should please fans of Modern Combat, or people looking for a simple approach to class based FPS on consoles.. but I'm waiting for DICE to reveal the goods on BF3 myself.

Well, wherefrom you know that the class model will be not improved compared to Modern Combat? Maybe it's like Modern Combat, maybe not. ETQW also comes to consoles and would be the first FPS of the NextGen consoles that provides the most complex class model (on consoles). So, it could be possible that the class model will be improved to be competive.

In reply to

[quote=GriftGFX]
There's plenty of relative hype, compared to the first installment in the series.
[/quote]

Hype doestn't mean advertising or bringing some dev videos. You could pull a game through the whole media landscape, but if it gets overall bad ratings there is absolutly no hype. Hype means that a very high amount of people are convinced of product, even if they never used it. Because there is virtually no advertising of Bad Company nor are there any previews around i wouldn't talk about hype at all.

[quote]
And I think it's pretty obvious that the campaign here is more of a focal point than it was in the first Modern Combat..
[/quote]

This is certainly the case. Bad Company will have a more deep/well shaped campaign. But that doesn't mean that Modern Combat had no campaign. Modern Combat didn't deliver such an intense campaign than CoD4, but it delivered a very very large campaign with lots of objectives (much larger than the campaign of CoD4).

[quote]
they're dressing it up with loads of character and I would imagine a better story to back it up.  
[/quote]

I don't know the storry of Bad Company, but from all the videos i think this is a very great and thought-provoking storry. You know, there are lots of private little war companies in iraq that are paid by the us government. Or lets say security companies to be political correct :D There are lots of reports where these private war companies killed civillians (either accidantly or deliberately), but are not called to account (because they officially don't belong the the us forces).
Those Bad Company videos reflects this issues on a very ironc way.

[quote]
It's all relative--compared to Halo 3--Call of Duty has virtually no hype at all.  It doesn't mean that there's no hype.
[/quote]

I don't agree. CoD4 was THE game on E3 2006, it was more hyped than HALO 3 or Killzone 2. HALO 3 may have a bigger advertising campaign, but i wouldn't say the hype is bigger than CoD4. Maybe a little more, but not really worth to mention.

[quote]
What matters (to me) is that the class model closely resembles BFMC, and that it lacks the things that made BF2 a leap forward for the franchise.  Bad Company should please fans of Modern Combat, or people looking for a simple approach to class based FPS on consoles.. but I'm waiting for DICE to reveal the goods on BF3 myself.[/quote]

Well, wherefrom you know that the class model will be not improved compared to Modern Combat? Maybe it's like Modern Combat, maybe not. ETQW also comes to consoles and would be the first FPS of the NextGen consoles that provides the most complex class model (on consoles). So, it could be possible that the class model will be improved to be competive.