According to DICE, the player/character animations using the ANT engine will be different in multiplayer from singleplayer -- the multiplayer animations will be more realistic.
Hmm, usually it's the other way around for most games, but this is pretty interesting. I'm really pumped for this game anyways.
I think the website misunderstood this. This quote was submitted before, and we understood it as multiplayer animations being quicker and more immediate. They said there'd be no enter/exit vehicle animations in multiplayer because it would be too slow. EDIT: Here it is on N4G: http://n4g.com/news/790573/... A direct link: http://www.battlefield3game...
Ok.... uhhh... MidnytRain has got to be right on this because this really makes no sense at all. If they could have it in multiplayer then there would be no reason not to have it in single player.
above is correct, multiplayer will have certain animations removed so that you will not have to wait for your character to jump into a vehicle and turn it on in a realistic fashion, which would cause you to be killed by snipers aiming towards the vehicles etc
This is more than just vehicle animations, it's how the player characters behave when they are shot etc.
Well in theory, people will spend more time playing MP, so it makes sense that they would make the animations look more polished.
Who ever wrote this article lacks understanding and totally misunderstood everything that the tweet said. With that said! Its actually the other with around with the single player having the more realistic animation and the multiplayer having the quicker death animation etc.
Keep both the SP and MP at similiar levels. Too much of this and too little of that is what makes broken games.
Disagree, singleplayer and multiplayer are different. Multiplayer needs to be realistic, while too much realism in singleplayer makes it boring.
Why does too much realism in a SP make the game boring and why doesn't it work the same way for MP? That doesn't make any sense... I do want quality products on either gameplay modes, I don't want to see my experiences ridiculously plot holed or exagerated to the point of pure stupidity. Let's put it this way... Why make a game have an inferior SP experience if they could and should be making a proper all arround product? It's too hard? It's time consuming? Consumers don't pay for excuses... Are we also talking about diffrent game engines here? Medal of Honor anyone? It's not just MP that needs to be intense, a single player campaign beeing all the more cinematic should really get every bit of intensity it can get.
thats odd, shouldnt it be the other way round
thats doesnt make any sense...why dont they make both single player and multiplayer death animations realistic...
who plays a BF game for the SP?
You've played the game already? BF2 didn't have a real SP, but BFBC2 was fine. I like the setting of this game so I will play the single player. Speak for yourself.
And this is why games shouldn't have multiplayer. It takes the focus out of the single player.
You could make the same argument for singleplayer taking focus out of multiplayer :)
I save that for the Starhawk articles.
Hope they keep ragdolls :( Love blowing someone up with a tank and watching them fly xD (or c4/anti-tank mine wookies in BC2)
The quote is actually the other way around. I would definitely mind if a guard on a balcony does not do a Hollywood stunt in the singleplayer :P
Other way around..
As everyone has already said: the site was misinformed but multiplayer will have faster animations than in single player which will have hollywood type deaths for a cinematic feeling.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.