The Power of a Game Engine
So, I love Battlefield to death, and BF4 looks fantastic, but I have one concern. Alot of developers throughout gaming have stated that new features (eg. destruction, weather) are a result of the en...
Forum Discussion
EA_Dennis
EA Staff
EA StaffGood question 🙂
Note, I'm not a developer so I cannot describe what the big technical innovations are, but I can share my personal ideas of why I think Frostbite 3 is a big step forward.
You are probably right in saying that similar results can be achieved within other powerful engines. But the big question here is, in what time and how much ressources are required in terms of manpower and from the target device that's running the game? Personally I think Frostbite 3 is more a huge innovation for the devs, we as a gamer are simply profiting from it. Frostbite 3 is powerful and flexible, it comes with powerful tools that allow devs to create spectacular effects within a short time. The engine's technology and feature sets are really lightening the dev's workload by automating things that would otherwise require additional code and time. Frostbite 3 is now used by more and more studios around the world for all different kind of game types, not because they are forced to but because it's the best (check the E3 interview below). All these studios are contributing to the main branch of the engine with new ideas or technologies and they can easily assist each other with problems they are facing.
All in all, Frostbite 3 seems to be a huge step forward for developers which ultimatively results in better and more awesome games for us, games that are highly optimized for any kind of hardware they are running on, be it mobile, mainstream or high-end computer hardware or consoles.
For a more technical insight, definitely check out this official Frostbite 3 Features video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9yVV6g3q7g
Also, the interview with Patrick Söderlund from E3 might be interesting: http://www.twitch.tv/battlefield/b/416492178 (interview starts at 1:27:00, talk about Frostbite 3 at 1:38:15)
So, let's use the example of the collapsing skyscraper. You're saying that the difference is:
-Other engines require that developers work on every small detail when creating an explosion to make it feel and look real.
-Frostbite can achieve that same cinematic effect with merely a script that triggers the animation, but developers let the engine do the work by itself.
So in other words, when we see the skyscraper collapse, are we actually seeing the engine's physics technology in action, even if it's just an animation?
So is it kinda like drawing an explosion on paper compared to dropping a live hand grenade? Like, both explosions need a starting point, but what matters is what goes on during the actual explosion? One requires that you personally deal with every detail, while one is at the mercy of actual outside influences, like physics?
If so, that's great! I just wish DICE had done more with the engine than creating specific animations, even if it's not crazy dramatic, like the skyscraper falling in different directions depending on which pillars you destroy, or waves pushing the ship in Paracel Storm to places other than a specific set point, just something to show me how dynamic the engine is.
But does Frostbite actually utilize its own physics when it comes to animations and effects, or are those specifically crafted to have given effect?
Thanks for reading and replying, I know these are weird questions, I have problems being nitpicky.
