• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

[Game] Battlefield 3

No mod tools is extremely ****ing disappointing.

I read somewhere else that they're not giving them out because they're too complicated and doing so would violate some of the licences used. This is bull****. There is no excuse as to why mod tools should be left out. If you can build what you are calling the greatest game engine available then you can find a way to get mod tools to the community. Simple as that.

Everything else looks good.
 
Upvote 0
No mod tools is extremely ****ing disappointing.

I read somewhere else that they're not giving them out because they're too complicated and doing so would violate some of the licences used. This is bull****. There is no excuse as to why mod tools should be left out. If you can build what you are calling the greatest game engine available then you can find a way to get mod tools to the community. Simple as that.

Everything else looks good.

I agree, its a very silly excuse. They are either lying, or underestimating the skills of the modders. They could always update the mod tools later to make them more accessible so there is no real reason why they shouldn't release them at launch. I'd say let the modders judge if its complicated or not.
 
Upvote 0
Whaaaat???!!!

I only have DX10(what an useless tech was that) and now I need DX11? I remember reading that cards that could do DX10 could do newer ones aswell, but I didn't get it to work in Lost Planet 2, so it doesn't work like that? :mad:


I have no idea, just quoting what someone said above. I doubt it will require DX 11.

Yet another game with the badass american marine on the front, didn't bother to read through the article just for that.

Who cares if Americans are on the cover or in the game? You people get offended too easily. I'm more interested in gameplay/features rather than which virtual country you play as.
 
Upvote 0
Ouch!

[url]http://bf3blog.com/2011/02/battlefield-3-wont-include-commander-feature/[/URL]

Going through our latest issue of GameInformer, the question of Commander came up (the Commander feature was available on Battlefield 2, and gave a player command over his team). Here’s what we found in GameInformer:
Q: 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?
A: We could implement it, but the questions 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 like 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 most 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 number you could also say that no one uses it. We tried in Bad Company 2 to give that t 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 the boundaries are for keeping the strategic depth and complexity while lowering the threshold to get in.
The argument that only two players could be commander (each on his team) is valid, but that was the whole point: a commander would lead his team. The notion that the UAV in Bad Company 2 was more accessible is nonsense — there was only one UAV in Bad Company 2. So only one player could use it, as opposed to two commanders in BF2.
If you ask us, this is a textbook example of “dumbing things down”, what DICE calls “make the threshold lower” and we can’t help but feel disappointed that the Commander feature isn’t returning to Battlefield 3. It added a whole new level to the gameplay, and the team with a good commander had a clear advantage.
 
Upvote 0
I dunno, depending on how it's done, it might work.

Anyone ever seen MAG?

It's got a crazy-insane tactical map. If there was a tactical map players could interact with easily, that's more useful than just making capture points flash and have a ring around it....that might be ok.

What I miss about the commander is coordinating with that one guy who knew what he was doing, and knew we'd listen to him because it was in our interest to. Having that one player, essentially playing god for your squad while you tried to do stuff, was awesome.

When a commander's attention was spread thin, about the most I appreciated them was when their arty managed to be on point, and not kill us.

I'm rationalizing for sure, but I can see where they're coming from. How they make up for it (and BC2 isn't adequate in my book) will determine how I feel about it. But that'll have to wait on the squad details.

As for mod tools, I've seen that when devs even take the time to mention them, beyond "no", it's not that they don't want to support it. It's a matter of time and investment. If BF3 does well, I can see them deciding it's worth the time to take 1/10th of their team and put them on some simplified mod tools. I don't think it's out of the forseeable future, it's just got no priority assigned to it in the release time frame.

For me personally, moddability was never something I asked of the BF franchise. So that's not a big loss to me.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Who cares if Americans are on the cover or in the game? You people get offended too easily. I'm more interested in gameplay/features rather than which virtual country you play as.


It's not that I have anything against Americans and simple soldiers, I just don't have the desire to play another game with that setting. And most importantly I don't (want to) have the time to play so many games so I prefer to stick with the few that I know will be good, not those I hope will be good.


And I agree that the new BF might be so awesome gameplay wise (although I don't really trust EA/Dice for the same reason as above) that I will be happy to buy it when we get some gameplay videos, but as I stated I won't bother to follow it all the way to the release as I am doing with HOES.
 
Upvote 0
I was looking forward to the next installment of Project Reality over Battlefield 3, but considering that the Project Reality team is looking to make a standalone game, I suppose it isn't that bad. Still, I think it's a bad decision by the developers and I hope it won't be used as an excuse to force-feed DLC and maps. Anyways, I have the magazine and I must admit that it looks pretty good. Even though I think the Middle Eastern setting is over-used, I don't mind if it's done right.
 
Upvote 0
And providing mod tools would in turn provide a more dedicated/longer lasting community. Essentially more dosh.


Im going to guess they feel that is actually wrong. Games lasting longer means less people move on to your next game as quickly, ergo less sales. Add to that the costs of the mod tools, and your probably tempted just to leave them out and make a game with a designed obsolescence of no more then one year, perfectly timed for your next game...
 
Upvote 0
Im going to guess they feel that is actually wrong. Games lasting longer means less people move on to your next game as quickly, ergo less sales. Add to that the costs of the mod tools, and your probably tempted just to leave them out and make a game with a designed obsolescence of no more then one year, perfectly timed for your next game...

And thats why we love TWI.
 
Upvote 0
Appearntly there's gonna be BF3-Odessa, as top screenshot shows-
1297140816655.jpg


(courtsy of xendance)
 
Upvote 0