When DICE set out to make the Frostbite 2 Engine that powered Battlefield 3, they did with the intention of it being a next-gen engine prepared to be used in next-gen consoles.
Former DICE CEO turned EA Games head Patrick Soderlund said the ‘Frostbite 2 engine is more than just prepared for the next-generation of games consoles, it was built for it’.
Gamasutra asked Soderlund if DICE had aimed for better than average specs with the PC version of Battlefield 3.
“Yeah, I’ll be honest with you – Frostbite 2 was built for the next generation. That’s how we started it,” the executive admitted.
“We had that in mind and we said, ‘We’re going to have to build something that can scale.’ It doesn’t mean that what you see in Battlefield 3 is the end state. That’s the beginning; that’s where we start and then we go forward. But we have a tech base that makes me feel really confident in how we’re positioned for what’s going to come in the future.”
Sioderlund said Frostbite 2 isn’t just “tech for the sake of making tech” but gameplay driven based on key areas of improvement noted in earlier DICE games.
“Animation was a key component that we said, ‘That ain’t cutting it.’ And how do we not just make a little leap, but how do we make a gigantic leap in animation? And that gravitated us towards our FIFA team, who have an advanced animation system,” he said.
“Audio is another thing. And then the other part is rendering and destruction. And destruction is cool, but we said we want to make gameplay-altering destruction, not just destruction for the sake of it. It needs to be, “Okay, I can shoot through that wall and kill someone; I can take away cover.”
“We take the philosophy on not forcing tech upon anyone,” he continued. “It was basically a desire from [Danger Close], when they saw the results of Battlefield, and they saw the results of what that engine could do at the time.
“I’m not saying [Epic has] a bad engine – I’m just saying comparing the two at the time it was like, ‘Okay, we can do more of what we want with the Battlefield/Frostbite engine.’
“And also you have other things: the economy of scale, if you want to call it that. This is boring business stuff. But at some point in time, we want to transfer resources between studios, and if they have the same knowledge on the tech base, it’s going to be a hell of lot easier for us to do that efficiently, and for them to get help or for them to give help. So that’s why we decided to centre on one tech piece, and that was Frostbite; it was the obvious choice.”
Frostbite 2 was used in last year’s Battlefield 3 and Need For Speed: The Run. It’s also being used in Danger Close’s upcoming Medal of Honor: Warfighter and PC RTS Command & Conquer Generals 2.
Would you like to see Frostbite incorporated in more titles behind shooters?
You can like our page on Facebook, follow us on Twitter, or add us to your circle on Google+ to keep yourself updated on all the latest news around the web.
Speaking of the visuals in BF3, I thought it was fantastic, however, there were some things that were a bit off, that could have been done better–namely, lens glare. Generally, I think lens glare gives a very beautiful and intriguing display to an animation which really sets the tone, however, Battlefield's level of realism seems to make lens flare unnecessary and a little peculiar. If I remember correctly, very few of the characters use face masks or goggles, so including lens flare on a naked eye view is totally just unrealistic. Does it look cool? Yes. Should there be some artistic license in video games? Yes. But did lens flare catch me a bit off guard and make the game feel slightly more unrealistic for me (as in, make me feel like I am not a real human on the battlefield)? Sadly, yes.