DICE’s GM talks about the problems with prone on Battlefield 3

DICE’s General Manager, Karl Troedsson, has recently spoke out about the problems DICE is having with Battlefield 3.

In an interview with games.on.net, Troedsson admitted that while the reason DICE has brought back prone was due to “the outcry from the community” he went on to say it causes a “lot of hassle”.

According to Troedsson the main problems DICE is facing with prone are “visually quality wise but also balancing” which is why they didn’t include prone in Bad Company.

Thankfully DICE sees these problems and says it is something they are going to “look into” prior to release. Are you looking forward to Battlefield 3 or will you give this blockbuster first person shooter a miss? Comment your opinions below.

5 thoughts on “DICE’s GM talks about the problems with prone on Battlefield 3

  1. Prone is a hassle, this is total BS rubbish. So why has prone worked in EVERY single battlefield but those crappy BC’s series? Nice one Troedsson, sounds like you guys were the ones tredding water during those games.

  2. When the made the BC series, they should have taken the word battlefield right out of the title completely.
    They should have never considered taking prone OUT of battlefield 3 in the first place. That’s why they are ‘having problems’.
    Shame for DICE, but they need to learn that making shitty console games for a quick buck wont work for them. All the kiddies love COD and they will never win. They need to stick to what they do best, making excellent BATTLEFIELD games for PC!

  3. Wow, you guys are ignorant. It worked in previous Battlefield games because they had no destruction. With the new destruction engine, it complicates everything. First off, the animation needs to work with craters. Second, how do you balance these makeshift foxholes and prone so that everybody doesn’t create a little firing point and sit there and shoot/camp everybody.

    Battlefield 3 is INNOVATING with physics-based destruction AND prone, which many games (if any at all) have done. While some arrogant BF2 fans might cry out for no destruction, but rather just a graphical upscale, you’ll ultimately be disappointed because it’s nothing new, and then DICE will fall into IW’s trap of making the same game, year after year.

    Seems to me you guys are just idiotic and don’t even deserve your brain if you can’t even think with common sense.

  4. Hey, anon. It seems that you’re the ignorant one. There should be no reason whatsoever to remove a necessary firing position from a game with the title of “Battlefield”.

    The programmers and developers are paid to make animations work with the environment, so let them deal with that. That’s a ridiculous argument, so it naturally doesn’t count.

    Second, what’s wrong with good cover? You seem to be terribly afraid of assaulting soldiers in foxholes. Sounds like someone needs a sippy-cup.

    Lastly, I’ve never heard anyone argue about removing the destruction. Maybe that kind of talk is out there, but I haven’t heard it. I agree with you on that point only. However, destruction and lying prone go hand in hand. Makeshift cover. Taking away prone doesn’t give us anything new. It gives us Bad Company 3.

Comments are closed.