PDA

View Full Version : BF3 Producer "Ashamed" of BC2



Borlaxx
09-30-2011, 10:52 AM
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6337314/ba ... Btitle%3B8 (http://www.gamespot.com/news/6337314/battlefield-3-producer-ashamed-of-bad-company-2?tag=updates%3Beditor%3Ball%3Btitle%3B8)

Basically says that although he thinks BC2 is a good game, he thinks it could have been much better.

This quote made me nervous:


Despite the game's imminent release, Bach said the beta is for more than just marketing purposes.

"We couldn't release the game today," he said. "You can't just put the bonnet on the car and drive it out of the factory before you have assembled the stuff inside it and know that it works."

So, test drive it less than a month before the release? IMO this beta should have been done a couple months ago. This is one of the comments on that page that I agree with:


I don't think that those screaming in defense of the beta have a very good grasp of how game production actually works in the real world. We're only a little over 3 weeks from launch on a title that took 3 years to develop. In that time, the game has be finalized, printed onto discs, loaded into trucks, and shipped in order to make the Oct. 25 release date. By my estimation, that means that the dev team has about two and a half weeks to correct the issues we're seeing in the beta. That's not a lot of time given the sheer size of the list of problems with the game right now (see for yourself http://playmoose.com/2011/09/battlefiel ... ggestions/ (http://playmoose.com/2011/09/battlefield-3-beta-issues-and-suggestions/)). If you're expecting huge changes in that time window you are setting yourself up for a major disappointment. You need to take a step back, stop getting personally involved with the title, and simply look at it for what it is: a product that they want you to purchase despite inadequate testing (because what the beta really says to me is "we never properly tested our game and just figured it worked fine").

This beta should have been run months ago because that's the only way to be sure most or all of the issues are fixed. As of right now, I'd say you can pretty much bet on a rough launch period full of glitches, connectivity problems, and mechanical issues that DICE simply didn't have time to fix due to waiting too late to release their test. I know that you want this game to succeed (I do too), but that doesn't mean that DICE shouldn't have done things differently. BF3 needs months of polish and it's only going to get two weeks. We really shouldn't be defending that way of doing business.

I hope that person, and myself, are wrong.

sam007
09-30-2011, 10:59 AM
Aren't all games like this at launch? Its the support afterwards which really matters so lets hope they support this game well afterwards, but only time will tell.

Oh there's also a higher being called EA, they may have had something to say about the beta release, etc.

Borlaxx
09-30-2011, 11:04 AM
Aren't all games like this at launch? Its the support afterwards which really matters so lets hope they support this game well afterwards, but only time will tell.
Yup, all games have issues at first, but those issues are normally less when there is adequate testing before hand. I am sure DICE will fix any problems eventually, but with a release this big, they should have done a beta months ago.

I know I am one of the few fans of the Uncharted games, and the beta for Uncharted 3 was done months ago so they could fix any problems before the game is release in early November, and even months ago that beta had multiple maps, game modes, co-op, etc. and ran better than this beta for BF3 does. Chances are good when UC3 comes out it will have very few issues, and only those that couldn't have been found in the beta. That is how a beta should be.

I truly believe BF3 will be great, but I have a feeling it will come out with problems that could have been fixed prior to release with a timely beta rather than after release due to a beta at the 11th hour.

El Conquesodor
09-30-2011, 11:30 AM
The level of Issues BF3 has are quite large compared to most if not all good games at launch. You'd expect BF3 to be a "good" game due to the amount of time it took to develop and the amount of hype it has been getting. I participated in the Halo Reach beta, it ran almost flawlessly to my remembering. I don't remember being able to make a list of things that are wrong like I can do for this beta. Now, Bungie/Microsoft and DICE/EA may have different strategies for their beta release. There is a lot of talk on the battlelog forums that the beta is a dated version of the game, but to me, even if it's true, it doesn't make a lot of sense to release an 8 month old copy of the multiplayer. However, there is something to think about in that at the Japanese games expo, I don't remember hearing a lot of negative about BF3. You would think if it had to massive amounts of minor problems (and some major ones) like this beta has, it wouldn't have received as rave of reviews.

Borlaxx
09-30-2011, 11:44 AM
The level of Issues BF3 has are quite large compared to most if not all good games at launch. You'd expect BF3 to be a "good" game due to the amount of time it took to develop and the amount of hype it has been getting. I participated in the Halo Reach beta, it ran almost flawlessly to my remembering. I don't remember being able to make a list of things that are wrong like I can do for this beta. Now, Bungie/Microsoft and DICE/EA may have different strategies for their beta release. There is a lot of talk on the battlelog forums that the beta is a dated version of the game, but to me, even if it's true, it doesn't make a lot of sense to release an 8 month old copy of the multiplayer. However, there is something to think about in that at the Japanese games expo, I don't remember hearing a lot of negative about BF3. You would think if it had to massive amounts of minor problems (and some major ones) like this beta has, it wouldn't have received as rave of reviews.
Was the footage at the expo SP or MP?

I have participated in the MoH beta, the Killzone 3 beta, and the Uncharted 3 beta before this one.

MoH beta had a lot of problems, the worst being freezing. Still, even that looked more "finished" than this beta.

The KZ3 beta had some freezing issues, but they fixed that with a patch, and after that it ran flawlessly. And that beta came out long enough before the main release to fix problems.

The UC3 beta ran and looked better than most full-release games. It had multiple modes and maps. There were server issues the first day, and they had them patched in less than 24 hours. It was by far the best beta I have been a part of, and that was several months before the release of the game.

I have said it once and I will say it again -- the way Naughty Dog did their beta for UC3 is the standard all developers should try to attain. A very polished beta months before release, rather than a very rough beta less than a month before release.

I can only hope this BF3 beta is really old, most of the problems have already been fixed, and they are just doing it to test the servers.

El Conquesodor
09-30-2011, 12:12 PM
It was multiplayer, they had like 32 computers set up so people could play against each other.

Also, the reach beta was similar to what you describe the UC3 beta as. It had little to no issues and people probably would have played it non-stop for the next forever if they hadn't turned it off. They did make a few balancing issues in a couple game types but there were no issues with how the game performed.

Beano
09-30-2011, 12:27 PM
But everyone tells me it's just a beta and everything will be ok at launch. I hope people know that those words aren't true. This IS A DEMO PEOPLE! BC2 demo/beta worked great. This is bad.

REMEC87
09-30-2011, 12:30 PM
But everyone tells me it's just a beta and everything will be ok at launch. I hope people know that those words aren't true. This IS A DEMO PEOPLE! BC2 demo/beta worked great. This is bad.

Guess you are right but I have faith in Dice because we all know they know FPS.

mechatool
09-30-2011, 01:49 PM
But everyone tells me it's just a beta and everything will be ok at launch. I hope people know that those words aren't true. This IS A DEMO PEOPLE! BC2 demo/beta worked great. This is bad.
I don't expect all the glitches to be worked out for release (not enough time for Dice), but I have faith that they will patch and patch the game until it works the way we expect. :-bd

REMEC87
09-30-2011, 01:55 PM
But everyone tells me it's just a beta and everything will be ok at launch. I hope people know that those words aren't true. This IS A DEMO PEOPLE! BC2 demo/beta worked great. This is bad.
I don't expect all the glitches to be worked out for release (not enough time for Dice), but I have faith that they will patch and patch the game until it works the way we expect. :-bd

All I know is that I wasted money on MoH and Homefront and passed on Brink because I was too afraid to buy a trifecta of crappy FPS games. BF3 has no choice but to be good....please be good, gosh darnit! I was also optimistic for the last 2 FPS games I bought so who the fuck knows.

Worstcase scenario I will see you on BC2! :cheers:

Borlaxx
09-30-2011, 01:57 PM
But everyone tells me it's just a beta and everything will be ok at launch. I hope people know that those words aren't true. This IS A DEMO PEOPLE! BC2 demo/beta worked great. This is bad.
I don't expect all the glitches to be worked out for release (not enough time for Dice), but I have faith that they will patch and patch the game until it works the way we expect. :-bd
Agreed, but I am sick of companies releasing games they know aren't done so they can make a deadline and then finish it after people have paid their $60. That wouldn't fly in any other business I can think of. Can you imagine buying a car, finding out it doesn't work correctly, and then being told by Ford or whoever that they will fix it in stages once they figure out what is wrong even though they already sold it to you? I know that this is the way many developers do it, but that doesn't mean I need to like it. Before the age of DLC, this would not have been acceptable. If you bought a broken game, it was broken for good, and that company likely went out of business. Now we expect broken games on release, which is sad and pathetic. We just hope they fix it down the line, although it can takes months and still not work as well as it should (black ops) or never get fixed at all (homefront).

roadrnr
09-30-2011, 03:12 PM
It's funny how long developers have been releasing broken games.

I was part of a closed beta group for Rainbow 6: Rogue Spear as well as played beta demos for quake 3, SiN and Unreal Tournament. In all the cases, they all had bugs. They released the retail games and they still had bugs...a ton of them in some cases. Even back then (late 90s, early 2000) everyone bitched about them releasing broken games. I even knew a couple of people that worked as 3d artists for game companies and they would talk about rushing to get the game published and then worrying about patching/fixing the game post release. It seems that they want to get a game out as soon as possible and then worry about fixing what's broken after that.

Its a crappy way to do business, but it's been the business model for over 10 years and yet they still do it today. Hell, I started console gaming because I was tired of playing games that were broken all the time. Only to find out that it still happened.

I'm not sure why DICE/EA decided to release a beta this late in the game or how old this version of the beta is, but I'm hopeful that it will be pretty functional at release (not like HF or Blops)

oreon87
09-30-2011, 04:23 PM
well my copy is already paid off in full so i guess i have 90days after release to figure out if i like it or not.

Wildbill
10-07-2011, 07:36 AM
Can we all stop being soooo f-in negitive :(

Do we really think all the bugs on one map and going to be there on every other map?

3 positives: Vehicles are coming, jets are coming and this is gonna be awesome. :cheers:

Plus they are fixing the match making so we'll be with our Bro's and bro-ette :cheers:

10-07-2011, 07:57 AM
+1 Wildbill... I haven't played the "beta", but I did play BC2 and I think DICE will work it out. If not, you guys can always tear it up on MW3.

dinsdale1978
10-07-2011, 08:13 AM
Okay here's the way things work. Game companies do rush out games when the parent company sets a release date that the developers think they can meet. If things get delayed too much the company might consider them a failed investment. Companies also want to hit the correct sales schedule so that their games either come out before another large title or hit a holiday buying window.

With that being said; all games go through internal or external testing. This game has been internally tested for some time. They have had a PC alpha test that caught many of the early bugs. The beta bugs have also been fixed for the final release but the timing for them getting an updated build to Microsoft and Sony can be somewhat delayed by how long it takes to have each entity approve said beta for release on their respective marketplaces. This beta build has also been being played in countless public settings like trade shows, conferences, and marketing presentations.

I don't think it is fair to assume that all companies are going to wait for the perfect version of their game, no matter how long it takes. That is just unreasonable and hurts them more than it hurts us. Some games sit in development so long to get bugs out and make it "perfect" that they become dated and nothing more than a fruitless effort.

To me Medal of Honor was a poor marketing decision and shouldn't have been developed by two studios with a tenuous connection of SP and MP. That to me was a pre-alpha build of BF3. So if you still think this beta will be an accurate representation of the final game please rub some of this where it hurts.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSGyIDrVMCQBa4ZGJ6mL3K5Q3AUnHGMc OgJxNQjWCNnCYW8rYtm

TonkaToys
10-07-2011, 08:15 AM
Some games sit in development so long to get bugs out and make it "perfect" that they become dated and nothing more than a fruitless effort.

Duke Nukem.

xMisFitToyx
10-07-2011, 08:17 AM
So if you still think this beta will be an accurate representation of the final game please rub some of this where it hurts.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSGyIDrVMCQBa4ZGJ6mL3K5Q3AUnHGMc OgJxNQjWCNnCYW8rYtm

This may help also.
http://pics.drugstore.com/prodimg/172067/300.jpg

xMisFitToyx
10-07-2011, 08:25 AM
Can we all stop being soooo f-in negitive :(

Do we really think all the bugs on one map and going to be there on every other map?

3 positives: Vehicles are coming, jets are coming and this is gonna be awesome. :cheers:

Plus they are fixing the match making so we'll be with our Bro's and bro-ette :cheers:


In the Immortal words of Oddball (Donald Sutherland: Kelly's Heros 1970)
"Always with the negative waves Moriarty, always with the negative waves."

theczech99
10-07-2011, 08:56 AM
For me there is a heck of a lot of good things outweigh the bad in BF3. One of the best features of BF games is the physics of the game and that part of BF3 seems to be solid to me. When running and you hit some stairs you slow down a little when going up. Tall objectives you canít jump over unless you have some momentum approaching them. The bipod can be used crouching or prone depending on the height of the object you are placing the bipod on. Try driving the EOD bot and youíll really see the physics of the game at work. Traveling through mud at a high rate of speed is no problem. Going through the same mud hole at a slow speed and the bot is very hard to control. The only way to drive the bot up stairs is to hit them full speed otherwise you wonít make it to the top. Bullet drop and the drop of fired RPGs seem to be spot on too.

These are the features that make BF special to me and they all seem to be in place and working well. All the other bugs are just minor inconveniences that can be patched. It would be a lot harder to fix the physics of the game than the minor issues we are experiencing.

Wildbill
10-07-2011, 09:03 AM
For me there is a heck of a lot of good things outweigh the bad in BF3. One of the best features of BF games is the physics of the game and that part of BF3 seems to be solid to me. When running and you hit some stairs you slow down a little when going up. Tall objectives you canít jump over unless you have some momentum approaching them. The bipod can be used crouching or prone depending on the height of the object you are placing the bipod on. Try driving the EOD bot and youíll really see the physics of the game at work. Traveling through mud at a high rate of speed is no problem. Going through the same mud hole at a slow speed and the bot is very hard to control. The only way to drive the bot up stairs is to hit them full speed otherwise you wonít make it to the top. Bullet drop and the drop of fired RPGs seem to be spot on too.

These are the features that make BF special to me and they all seem to be in place and working well. All the other bugs are just minor inconveniences that can be patched. It would be a lot harder to fix the physics of the game than the minor issues we are experiencing.


This is what I was thinking. :cheers:

Damn I might buy another PS3 for this game. I miss you guys. :cheers: