DICE talks Frostbite's effect on Star Wars Battlefront, plus in-game destruction

DICE Senior Producer Sigurlina Ingvarsdottir talked about the Frostbite engine and what it enables DICE to create for Star Wars Battlefront.

[crazychris4124]

"The Battlefield series is known for its high level of destruction and carnage, so it's only logical to expect a similar level of destruction in Star Wars Battlefront. Ingvarsdottir was then asked about the type of destruction players can expect when they step into Star Wars Battlefront this November.

"It’s hard to point at any one specific example, but I think that when you see the visuals of the game as a whole, and you compare in your mind with games that have been running on previous generations of consoles, you can just see the leap in capabilities of the hardware – as well as what the engine can really do, given that increased power," Ingvarsdottir said."

Dont expect much guys, if the destruction was great they wouldnt have waited this long to talk about it and he side stepped the question. Looks like yet another game with lackluster destruction. Amazing how a 5 year old game on old consoles has better destruction than a new game on new consoles. If I were them I would show off gameplay on May 4th to show everyone how 'great' the game is. Cant wait for Just Cause 3 and its physics based destruction.

[AnotherProGamer]

destruction in Battlefront is not something very important or needed

[OutcastMosquito]

^ agreed. As long as it's beautiful and plays smoothly, I have full confidence in DICE. This game will possibly be one of the best Star Wars games this decade.

[SilentNegotiator]

Don't be silly; that's what the series is "known for".

lol

[itisallaboutps]

it's pointless because they feel like paper walls and taking cover behind a house in BF is pointless because someone always has some time rocket they pull out of their booty hole.

better off not having that mediocre destruction in my opinion.

[psychosmurf101]

nobody cares about how destructible the environments are

[TheCommentator]

Destruction allows for tactics that are more realistic and make the battlefield look like a war is taking place. I thought the days of indestructable cardboard boxes were over! I guess as long as the game looks pretty though, who cares if it's environment is interactive. Nobody wants to interact with a game anyways, right?

[crazychris4124]

Im sorry I want to level entire towns instead of staring at photo realistic hamburgers

[GUTZnPAPERCUTZ]

Battlefield has pretty good destruction for a 64 player shooter with good visuals.

If there are any other games that come close, let me know.

[thorstein]

"He sidestepped the question."

Sigurlina Ingvarsdottir is a woman.

[TheCommentator]

Then let's be more appropriate and say she skirted the issue. ;b

[Qrphe]

There are PS2 games with higher levels of destruction than most modern games and also games with working mirrors.

[iistuii]

Frostbite engine so far hasn't been able to hit 1080/60 & has terrible jaggies in the console games. I'm hoping this will be different., unless they go for 30fps.

[_-EDMIX-_]

LMFAO! Able? You do know that hitting that means a decrease in quality not increase right? And how do you know it hasn't been able?

DICE set those settings, they are not exact, they are game dependent and developer dependent. When you game on PC, does the game do 1080p, 60fps, or do YOU the user set the settings to get that?

Consider DICE didn't like how it looked at 1080p and felt they could get more effects in much more smooth at 900p.

1080p 60fps on PC is nothing more then decreasing settings to get that (if you don't have a beast GPU depending on the game)

Frostbite 3 is easily one of the best looking engines on next gen right now. It was set to 900p by DICE because it was their call, not because Frostbite 3 can't do it or PS4 or XONE can't do it etc.

Consider that Frostbite 3 is being used in SW, Mass Effect 4, Mirrors Edge 2 etc, if one of those games has it in 1080p 60fps, its based on the team being ok with some of the sacrifices to get that setting.

Please....think of consoles like your gaming PC if you have one, they are changing settings based on what they feel looks right, just like a PC gamer would do the same.

As a gamer that games on both PC and console, when I'm changing settings on a PC game, I'm not struggling, I"m not "achieving" lol, it isn't this hard impossible task....if you want speed, lower some quality, you want 1080p, turn off some effects.

DICE didn't want that trade off, in fact many next gen only titles made very similar choices. What I like on my settings on some PC games are not what others my like on theirs, consider DICE is no different.

[iistuii]

Well it's not going too well for that engine on consoles. They wanted it running at 60fps, so yeah I do understand they have to trade some settings like AA. But you calling it running smooth lol. Battlefield 4 on Ps4/Xbox One was far from smooth. I stick by my original comment, I will come back here when the game is released & it will be 900p/60 with little or no AA & as jaggie as hell.

[_-EDMIX-_]

@iistuii- running 60fps is really smooth. Consider if they wanted 1080p, they would have it running likely lessor then 60fps. The choice they made makes sense.

"Battlefield 4 on Ps4/Xbox One was far from smooth" if 60fps isn't smooth, bud I don't know what to tell you.

"900p/60 with little or no AA & as jaggie as hell"

Would you rather have it 1080p 30fps and no features turned on in terms of effects?

Like I said, its a trade off that makes sense. Demanding engines will have some trades offs.

Look at COD's engine, they used literally the same engine with Ghost to get better performance, but its not graphically near BF4 or SW.

Dated engines can perform that setting much easier, were as a much more demanding engine will have some trade offs, but will ultimately look better then a dated engine.

I'll take a new engine at 900p 60fps vs a dated engine in 1080p 60fps with very little graphical advantages.

ie I'll take GTAV running on lessor vs GTASA running 1080p 60fps.

As a whole, a new engine by most game fans will be desired over a dated engine. Those jaggies are based on not having AA (clearly you know) but in that case...stick to PC. I really don't know what to tell you. 60fps with jaggies is better then 30fps with AA and having it run lessor frames.

I really, really don't think its that important to trade so many frames for a MP game where that is very important.

Even on PC I still turn off AA on MP games to get better performance.

If such a thing is so important.....legit, don't waste your time on consoles. That is just way to important to you to own consoles and be asking for. They will make trade offs for what the majority want, if I where you, I would look into getting either a Titan card or one of the R9's.

This sounds like its not DICE's engine, its really their choices they are making. That doesn't mean Frostbite3 can't do it or isn't "able" to, it just means DICE isn't making those trade offs.

I'm planning on buying SW BF likely twice, once on PS4 as I don't mind the jaggies lol, and on PC when I make a build later next year.

[mochachino]

I have little faith in DICE's destruction. They gave up on that a long time ago in favour of graphics.

I don't blame them entirely though, if they upped the destruction millions of whiny gamers would complain about a graphics downgrade while reminiscing about how BFBC2 was the best in the series.

[SilentNegotiator]

Well it was, so... :)

[HammadTheBeast]

Ever since BFBC2 I haven't seen much true destruction in Battlefield games. Sure, walls are breakeable but it's preset and you can tell there's only 2 places to break them.

Probably the closest it got was the Close Quarters map pack in BF3.

[The_Sage]

Destruction?... Blasters don't blow buildings apart. Anyone remember buildings falling down in Star Wars from blaster fire? I think it would kill the Star Wars feel if they used destruction. Trees maybe, being hit by AT AT fire.