Please support Game Informer. Print magazine subscriptions are less than $2 per issue
Battlefield 3
Though we didn’t see any multiplayer in action during our cover story visit to DICE, that didn’t stop us from prying some revealing answers from executive producer Patrick Bach.
This is an extended version of the interview that ran in the March 2011 issue of Game Informer.
The
experienced player understands and appreciates the teamwork concept in
Battlefield’s multiplayer, but you often see new players lone wolfing it
and missing the point entirely. How do you break through that barrier?
We’ve
been asking ourselves that question – why don’t people play it. Because
when you’ve put some hours into it it’s like, “this is way better than
the competition.” The problem isn’t only on the game side, it’s how do
you get to the point where everyone has tried it? Even if you have a
demo or you gave away free samples you still need people to try it. The
challenge is to get people to try it because we know that they will get
hooked when they do. But also on the teamplay aspect it’s a deeper layer
that most other shooters don’t have. The hurdle is to make sure that we
lower the threshold to get into the game by letting everyone try it
out. The running and gunning should be extremely accessible. That’s
something we’re working toward with every iteration of the game while
deepening the game so once you get hooked, there’s enough depth to play
to get people to come back.
Bad Company 2 came out of the
gates quickly, placing in the top three on Xbox Live for several months.
Then you went six months without delivering new maps and the community
fell off drastically. Do you plan on taking a different approach with
Battlefield 3?
We have a big focus on sustaining the game. To be
honest, Bad Company 2 was a bigger success than we anticipated. We did
not account for that. We sold a lot of copies and don’t feel bad about
where we were, but looking back, we should have released more, bigger
content earlier. The challenge is to build a game, and then have more
people coming on before the project is done to start building extra
content because it takes a lot of time to get stuff out. Even if you’re
done with something it takes another one-to-two months to get it on the
net so to speak. We’ve learned our lesson now, and have a lot of really
interesting plans for how to keep the attention of the players. We can
do better in that area.
One of the things I felt went
hand-in-hand with the lack of new maps was that, anecdotally, a lot of
people stopped playing around level 25 because there was no longer a
carrot dangling in front of them in terms of unlockables. Why did you
decide on that approach, and do you plan on altering the progression in
Battlefield 3?
It falls back on what I said earlier – we were
much more successful with our approach than we anticipated. We didn’t
think most people would hit level 22 to be honest, and especially not so
fast. Our calculations on how much people would play to hit level 20,
25, 50 were completely wrong. Thought people wouldn’t play that much.
We’re looking into the numbers of how we scale up, what we give away,
how we give it away, with the understanding that some people put a lot
of time into the game. There will be a lot more to unlock, not only
weapons and other treats, but we have more things that you can unlock
than in Bad Company 2, and we’re also making sure that there is a reason
for you to reach the top rank. It doesn’t just end. There will be a lot
of focus on persistence and how we present stuff to the player.
One
of the things that helps persistence is when you give the player an
identity. For instance, you can carve your initials into your gun in
Black Ops, and Rainbow Six let you customize your outfit. What are the
challenges to this approach and do you see Battlefield 3 going in this
direction?
The more variation you have [in the characters] the
less variation you can have in the rest of the world. I think it also
has to do with the way you play more professionally. You don’t want
people to look completely different. It’s team A versus team B. It’s
always a challenge – how do you personalize a uniform? Giving the pink
rabbit hat to someone would make it fun, but if you’re running around
and you don’t know what you’re shooting at you don’t take the
professional gaming seriously in my book. So there’s a challenge between
personalizing and keeping it uniform. We will do more in that area,
making sure that you can get your character to be more personalized both
in a visual way and more specifically in the way you gear up. We did a
good job I would argue in Bad Company 2 with specializations, different
scopes, and different weapons – you can kind of find your way of playing
the game, which broadens the game for more people. The deeper you get
into that the more you unravel figuring new things out every day. That
was kind of the seed to what we’re building now. We now know more than
we’ve ever known about how to personalize a uniform team. Your friends
will get very happy when they can see what they can do with their
soldiers.
When I think about Battlefield 2, I always come back
to the Commander position and the game within the game that arose from
having Special Forces objectives. Are those returning in the proper
sequel?
We could implement it but the question is how do you get
the threshold lower? That’s not by making it more complicated. Our
challenge is to make sure that anyone that just jumps into the game will
get it. One of the biggest problems with Commander was that only two
people could use it. Some people liked it but most people didn’t care,
they just cared that someone gave them an order or that their squad
could play together having fun on their own more or less. Then the more
hardcore people went into the Commander mode and learned how to use
that. You could argue it was a great feature, but looking at the numbers
you could also say that no one uses it. We tried in Bad Company 2 to
give that to the players, so you could issue orders to your squad, and
you could use gadgets like the UAV that only the commander could use
earlier – giving the power back to the players so everyone could use it.
That made a big difference. More people could enjoy the game. We
lowered the threshold for everyone because we gave it to everyone. We
now know where the boundaries are for keeping the strategic depth and
complexity while lowering the threshold to get in.
Since
Battlefield 2 you’ve toyed with the amount of classes – that game had
seven classes, Battlefield 1943 had only three, and Bad Company 2 had
four. Do you think you’ve found the sweet spot?
Yes, I think the
sweet spot is four. Looking at what we’ve done so far, we see the
classes as a starting point. Classes are kind of “Who am I? Well, I’m
this kind of person. I want to help out or play in this way.” Then as
you go along you will find different nuances of that class. If you look
at the amount of classes you actually have in Bad Company 2 with all of
the different loadouts, it’s probably a couple of thousand, compared to
1942, which was quite static. So the sweet spot for entry is around
four. Then it’s about how much you branch it. It’s a never-ending
discussion that’s a matter of what kind of toys you want the player to
have and how you balance it out. The rock, paper, scissors theory is
still the foundation of every Battlefield game. A lot of people come up
to me and say “You should increase the power of that gun, or you should
make this gun better, or you should add nukes." The easy response to
that is "How is that fun for the person getting shot at?" Because that
needs to be the balance – if there’s no counter to a weapon, then we
won’t put it in the game. There should always be a way of countering, so
then you get this circle of death where if you have the means to kill
me, I can switch gear and find means to get back at you. There shouldn’t
be any über class or über weapons. Some games have perks where you kill
the game by using it, and you do it over and over again. That’s no fun,
that’s a game breaker. If someone gets really good at flying a chopper,
then people say the chopper is overpowered. No, you just haven’t
learned how to counter it, because there is a counter. That’s the kind
of depth you want in a Battlefield game. It actually takes time until
someone figures it out. We often compare ourselves to sports. You have a
game with a set of rules, but there are a million ways of playing that
game still even though the rule set is very solid and it hasn’t changed
for 100 years. Every game is completely new. There is always a way to
counter the opponent. Like football, or basketball, or soccer, the game
is always evolving, yet the rules are the same. People adapt and find
new ways.
How was hardcore mode received? Was there a broad adoption?
I
think it goes in waves, and it’s also about your daily form. How are you
playing? How do you feel today? How fast are you? I think the hardcore
game mode is a brilliant idea, and we could probably turn it up a notch
to make it even more hardcore in the future because people are willing
to try it out. It’s the same game, but you turn it up to 11…You want
that layer of complexity that you can just add on top of whatever game
mode you have. It’s a good way of seeing the same game through a new
angle.
It was great to be able to squad up in the pre-game
lobby, but limiting it to the four people in one squad was troublesome
for larger groups who wanted to play together. Are you changing your
approach for Battlefield 3?
Well, yes. It’s actually a very
crucial part of the game. We’re thinking a lot about squads and team
play – making that even more accessible. Like you said, squads are
really easy to set up, but how can you take that further? We have some
really cool things that we’ll show later when it comes to dictating how
you play with friends.
Call of Duty and Halo both have it, but
with the crazy things that happen in Battlefield matches, no game is
better suited to having a theater mode. What are you thoughts on that?
We
have functionality on our end that can capture movies. The hard part of
course is our dedication to creating non-cheatable games contradicts
the whole idea of doing that because we are running dedicated servers on
everything and that actually makes it harder. We’re definitely looking
into ways of delivering our version of this functionality, but I can’t
give away any details.
What are your plans for co-op? Will you be able to play through the campaign with friends?
We
will have a co-op mode. I won’t go into exact details about if it’s
going to be connected to this or that, but we will have a co-op mode in
the box.
During the summer you released the one-off Onslaught mode for Bad Company 2. How did you feel it was received?
Okay.
Only okay. Onslaught was an experiment on our side to see what we could
do with our technology on existing code more or less. There was very
little code change to the game because it was more or less supposed to
be a little quirky mod for Bad Company 2. It was actually received
better than we thought. We now know much better what is needed, and of
course we have better tools that are designed to do these things. I can
honestly say that we can now do whatever we want to do, and the choices
we have made for the game are based on what we want rather than what we
have.
One of the more controversial additions to Bad Company 2
was the killcam – snipers especially whined about it. Are you keeping
it for Battlefield 3?
We still think that some kind of giveaway
camera, no matter what it is, is something that you should be able to
have. And you should have the opportunity to turn it off and play a game
without it. I think it’s not all bad. And again, if you look at how we
reason when we build a game there should always be a way to counter
something, and if you’re a good sniper you know that you’re now on
camera, which means that you should move.
Jets are coming back in Battlefield 3. How are you dealing with the maps to give them room to maneuver?
We’re
building bigger maps. Then again, the games are about fun so if you
have a Mach 2 jet on one of our maps you would pass it in 0.2 seconds.
You still need to design the game to fit. It can’t be as slow as a
chopper, but then again it can’t be Mach 2 so there’s a sweet spot that
we’re hitting with map scale, scale of fight, and speed of vehicles so
it will actually fit. And of course there should also be a way of
countering something.
Prone is coming back as well. Why the
change of heart from Bad Company 2, for which you defending your
reasoning to leave it out of the game?
First of all, Bad Company
2 was the spin-off. We had our own rule set. This is based on
Battlefield 2, so we can go back and look at how can we solve the
problem of proning, hiding in high grass, and there are a lot of ways of
countering that. Muzzle flash is one of them, vapor traces are another –
the bigger the gun the bigger the trace – stuff like that. And of
course giving others tools to spot players and give away positions. We
have more time to fiddle with those things to make them work. Prone is
fun for the person proning. How fun is it to not see someone shooting
you? It’s not fun at all. That’s our challenge. That’s our job to design
around that and find ways to counter that.
The Bad Company 2
multiplayer maps felt more funneled, then the Vietnam expansion offered
more open areas like classic Battlefield games. What approach are you
adopting for Battlefield 3?
I’m glad you noticed because that’s
actually what we want to do. We want to show people that we can build
whatever we want, and if you want to give people variation then you
should look at what you just did and then do it slightly different.
That’s the motto we use all the time – you pick a map for a reason. You
want to play a map for a reason because it gives you variation to
gameplay, pacing, flow, action, hotspots, and also how do or don’t you
use vehicles on this map.
To read more about Battlefield 3, click on the hub link below: