Frostbite 3 engine detailed in latest teaser video

By on June 25, 2013, 4:15 PM

Battlefield 4 is still about four months away but that hasn’t stopped EA from releasing a number of trailers to showcase what the title has in store for gamers this holiday season. The latest sneak peek takes a closer look at the technology used to power the game, the Frostbite 3 engine.

A good bit of the footage shown in the embedded video below is recycled from earlier trailers but what’s new this time around is the commentary. Frostbite creative director Frank Vitz points out that the engine has been in development since 2006 as an evolutionary process.

One of the goals of Frostbite 3 was to create more dynamic and living environments. For example, game developers previously had to go through a lot of effort to give the impression of trees swaying in the wind. With the new engine, developers are given tools to create the tree but it’s left up to the game engine to animate the tree using wind.

Environmental destruction is also a core feature of the Frostbite engine and one big step forward is called levelution. This involves drastically altering a multiplayer map into something totally different. Examples given include a building collapsing or a dam breaking – anything that could be a big game-changer to a level.

Yet another new feature in Battlefield 4 is networked water simulation. It may sound complicated but basically it means that all players will see the same waves in the same position at the same time on water-based maps. This will no doubt provide an interesting dynamic when battling it out on the high seas.

We invite you to check out the video above for a complete look at what Frostbite 3 has to offer. I, for one, am really excited about what Battlefield 4 has to offer. What says you?




User Comments: 38

Got something to say? Post a comment
1 person liked this | TomSEA TomSEA, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

Impressive detail, dynamics and animations. Would (obviously) like to see more than 2 second clips though. Also some info on what type of machine it's going to take to run this at top settings.

TechGamer TechGamer said:

A massive improvment the frostbite engine just keeps impressing me from game to game

ReederOnTheRun ReederOnTheRun said:

That's what I like to hear, can't wait to see it more in-depth

2 people like this | Chazz said:

If a browser is required again they can count me out. I haven't played BF3 for months because of that + Origin. Atleast I have BFBC2.

2 people like this | JC713 JC713 said:

I wish it was more like the Crysis 3 tech demo (long clips) like @TomSEA said. I feel like it is Battlefield 3 with more effort put into the graphics and features. Too bad I will still buy it! I hate you EA xD.

1 person liked this | lawfer, TechSpot Paladin, said:

I wish it was more like the Crysis 3 tech demo (long clips) like @TomSEA said. I feel like it is Battlefield 3 with more effort put into the graphics and features. Too bad I will still buy it! I hate you EA xD.

I keep seeing people saying this, only because their ART style is the same. Better graphics, improved and new features sound like a new game to me. And it seems like the single player might be worth people's time now.

Plus, you can dive underwater in MP now. And yes, the fish will move out of the way when you do so.

JC713 JC713 said:

I keep seeing people saying this, only because their ART style is the same. Better graphics, improved and new features sound like a new game to me. And it seems like the single player might be worth people's time now.

Plus, you can dive underwater in MP now. And yes, the fish will move out of the way when you do so.

Yeah, it is definitely a new game. I just think it should be called Bad Company 3, not a whole new Battlefield.

lawfer, TechSpot Paladin, said:

I keep seeing people saying this, only because their ART style is the same. Better graphics, improved and new features sound like a new game to me. And it seems like the single player might be worth people's time now.

Plus, you can dive underwater in MP now. And yes, the fish will move out of the way when you do so.

Yeah, it is definitely a new game. I just think it should be called Bad Company 3, not a whole new Battlefield.

You and me both. But DICE said that even if they wanted, they can't, seeing how they are working on BF4, Mirror's Edge 2, and Battlefront 3 right now. Guess we have a few more years until we see BC3.

1 person liked this | JC713 JC713 said:

You and me both. But DICE said that even if they wanted, they can't, seeing how they are working on BF4, Mirror's Edge 2, and Battlefront 3 right now. Guess we have a few more years until we see BC3.

I think they should delay BF4... I feel they are rushing it. Also, I hope they dont screw up Battlefront 3 because Battlefront 1 and 2 were amazing.

4 people like this | amstech amstech, TechSpot Enthusiast, said:

And I just went from "BF4 will be just another BF game" to "holy crap I just might want to play this".

4 people like this | lawfer, TechSpot Paladin, said:

You and me both. But DICE said that even if they wanted, they can't, seeing how they are working on BF4, Mirror's Edge 2, and Battlefront 3 right now. Guess we have a few more years until we see BC3.

I think they should delay BF4... I feel they are rushing it. Also, I hope they dont screw up Battlefront 3 because Battlefront 1 and 2 were amazing.

Yeah, that's another misconception among players. BF4 has been in development for 2 years now. But they already had the technology in place.

3 year development time sounds about right for a good, lengthy game. But what most people don't know is that out of these 3 years, one and half includes the actual creation of the game. The other half is where the programmers build/tailor the engine for the game they want to make. This process is usually repeated with every single game; you want a FPS? Spend a year and a half (or more if you're Skyrim) making the engine and tool-set for it, and add another year or so building the actual game on top of it. Rinse and repeat, for every single game. Sounds like a lot of work, right?

Frostbite, on the other hand, has a dedicated team only working on it. Which means DICE has had the full 2 years to work on the game itself while another team provides updates to the source code, which would have otherwise taken time away from making the game, like with BF3. Frostbite is now being used on Command & Conquer, NFS and the new Dragon Age, which means those teams can work on the game, while the Frostbite team (note: not DICE) works on the engine. Win-win.

H3llion H3llion, TechSpot Paladin, said:

And I just went from "BF4 will be just another BF game" to "holy crap I just might want to play this".

I think we all did!

Looks absolutely breath taking, can't wait. As @TomSEA said, I wonder what the requirements will be.

1 person liked this | soldier1969 soldier1969 said:

Well I know what I will be playing for the next 18 months plus starting in October...

GeforcerFX GeforcerFX said:

Ok ok I will buy this game, just really wish EA and Valve would grill up the beef between them so I can have the game in my library on steam, BF3 was just to buggy and frustrating to me and even though I was pretty good at it those bugs and the constant 180 changes in how the game played every patch really took the fun away, I could see in Beta they had a lot of nice features in the FB2 engine but they were taken out for release. A lot of those appear to be back in FB3 and looking even better, hopefully netcode and gun play is fixed this time around, if all else fails I really don't see the BFBC2 PC community shrinking anymore we have a dedicated 10,000 or so different players on every week, and some really good servers still going around, and better yet I can launch it from steam.

1 person liked this | LNCPapa LNCPapa said:

I don't care what the requirements will be - as long as it's not Origin I will buy the requirements to play this!

JC713 JC713 said:

Yeah, that's another misconception among players. BF4 has been in development for 2 years now. But they already had the technology in place.

3 year development time sounds about right for a good, lengthy game. But what most people don't know is that out of these 3 years, one and half includes the actual creation of the game. The other half is where the programmers build/tailor the engine for the game they want to make. This process is usually repeated with every single game; you want a FPS? Spend a year and a half (or more if you're Skyrim) making the engine and tool-set for it, and add another year or so building the actual game on top of it. Rinse and repeat, for every single game. Sounds like a lot of work, right?

Frostbite, on the other hand, has a dedicated team only working on it. Which means DICE has had the full 2 years to work on the game itself while another team provides updates to the source code, which would have otherwise taken time away from making the game, like with BF3. Frostbite is now being used on Command & Conquer, NFS and the new Dragon Age, which means those teams can work on the game, while the Frostbite team (note: not DICE) works on the engine. Win-win.

Yeah, well said.

JC713 JC713 said:

I don't care what the requirements will be - as long as it's not Origin I will buy the requirements to play this!

They wont put it on Steam. BF3 already made Origin a "forced hit" amongst gamers who play EA games. Because it has gained "popularity", they will continue to support it. BF4 will help increase Origins use.

Guest said:

Putang inang to.

Littleczr Littleczr said:

And I just bought a gtx 680 on eBay. To me 45+ frames per second is a good experience for first person shooters. From the looks of it, I say only the titan will be able to play it at 45 frames per with everything turned on at 1080p.

Sucks that I have a 1440p monitor, I may need to buy another gtx 680.

2 people like this | danhodge danhodge said:

Oh yeah? Well on COD, fish swim away from you! Beat that...

Skidmarksdeluxe Skidmarksdeluxe said:

I don't care what the requirements will be - as long as it's not Origin I will buy the requirements to play this!

Can I tag along with you?

1 person liked this | Skidmarksdeluxe Skidmarksdeluxe said:

And I just bought a gtx 680 on eBay. To me 45+ frames per second is a good experience for first person shooters. From the looks of it, I say only the titan will be able to play it at 45 frames per with everything turned on at 1080p.

Sucks that I have a 1440p monitor, I may need to buy another gtx 680.

It'll be cheaper to buy a 1080p monitor... And a lot less complicated.

LukeDJ LukeDJ said:

And I just bought a gtx 680 on eBay. To me 45+ frames per second is a good experience for first person shooters. From the looks of it, I say only the titan will be able to play it at 45 frames per with everything turned on at 1080p.

Sucks that I have a 1440p monitor, I may need to buy another gtx 680.

It'll be cheaper to buy a 1080p monitor... And a lot less complicated.

Or he could turn his resolution down to 1080p.

Even cheaper, and even less complicated!

Nobina Nobina said:

Graphics are amazing but that's not what makes the game good. Anyway, If only Titan will be able to max out settings than people with mid range PCs won't be able to play this game at all (maybe on lowest settings), which will discourage them from buying the game.

1 person liked this | Guest said:

OK, now bring on a brand new WW2-based BF using FB3 for a change! :)

Burty117 Burty117, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

I just got an entirely new setup for this game, I even went all out and got a GTX 780 and I game at 1080p, if the 780 struggles to run this at full then I'm going to cry!

Also, agreed with guest, the last decent WWII based FPS was Call of Duty 2!

Would love to see a newer WWII game now that graphics have hit a new level of awesome.

Wagan8r Wagan8r said:

I'm hoping that they've made lots of optimizations to the Frostbite 3 engine for the new consoles. If it can run close to this level of detail on a console (a low-mid range PC), then I should still be fine with my GTX 670.

1 person liked this | MrBungle said:

And I just bought a gtx 680 on eBay. To me 45+ frames per second is a good experience for first person shooters. From the looks of it, I say only the titan will be able to play it at 45 frames per with everything turned on at 1080p.

Sucks that I have a 1440p monitor, I may need to buy another gtx 680.

It'll be cheaper to buy a 1080p monitor... And a lot less complicated.

I run 1440p on my system and dual gtx 680s... had a single for a while but it seemed to struggle at times with some of the newer shooters, if your budget permits I'd say get the second card.

GeforcerFX GeforcerFX said:

And I just bought a gtx 680 on eBay. To me 45+ frames per second is a good experience for first person shooters. From the looks of it, I say only the titan will be able to play it at 45 frames per with everything turned on at 1080p.

Sucks that I have a 1440p monitor, I may need to buy another gtx 680.

there not adding that many features, and the engine is again further optimized. More then less likely a system that played Bf3 well will have no problems playing BF4 just as well.

Chris Barry Chris Barry said:

If a browser is required again they can count me out. I haven't played BF3 for months because of that + Origin. Atleast I have BFBC2.

Get over yourself will you.. If you cant look passed that than you don't deserve bf3 or bf4! oh and bfbc2 Rules!

Guest said:

They have a 20 min game play video on their website. lol.

GhostRyder GhostRyder said:

Im sooooooooooooooooooooooooo Hyped up for this game, ive been setting up my system preparing for it in the next months!!!

Oh my god, this destruction is going to be so much fun.

Chazz said:

Get over yourself will you.. If you cant look passed that than you don't deserve bf3 or bf4! oh and bfbc2 Rules!

Voice your opinion with your wallet = full of yourself. Okay.

ghasmanjr ghasmanjr said:

Graphics are amazing but that's not what makes the game good. Anyway, If only Titan will be able to max out settings than people with mid range PCs won't be able to play this game at all (maybe on lowest settings), which will discourage them from buying the game.

Metro: Last Light was extremely taxing on cards but almost anyone could play it on lower settings. Dice is not going to screw the little guys that can't afford a high end 600 or 700 series card. I'm sure they'll code it such that lower graphical settings will work even on a 5870.

LNCPapa LNCPapa said:

Funny that a 5870 is now lower end but I agree with your post hasman. BTW - Did I work with you at Notre Dame IT a few years ago?

DanUK DanUK said:

Gawdd this just looks bloody amazing doesn't it. Can't wait.

SirGCal SirGCal said:

I don't support anything EA or Origin... Don't care if it's the next coming. They lost me as a customer long ago. Too many other good games out there to bother with them.

ghasmanjr ghasmanjr said:

Funny that a 5870 is now lower end but I agree with your post hasman. BTW - Did I work with you at Notre Dame IT a few years ago?

It's crazy that you can pick one of those up for less than a hundred bucks nowadays but the Gtx 680 is still $450.

I've never visited Notre Dame before. I thought about going there for grad school, but I ended up elsewhere.

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.