DICE Details Console Compromises in Battlefield 3

[TheComfyChair]

If MAG can have up to 256 players in the same game on a PS3, and Battlefield games sell on the promise of their large-scale multiplayer (something which they helped to INVENT), then I don't see why the developers didn't focus on, I dunno, lowering graphical quality to make room for additional players?

But nah, they're scared of people whining about texture differences.

Hey, if you don't like it go play it on the PC. As a console player and one who enjoys great graphics, I am excited. While I was more or less hoping for 16v16 and not 12v12, I will still take what I can get.

Well hey, I just looked down and realised i was typing away on a £1,500 gaming PC that I blew my savings on just to give it 8GB of RAM and 4GB of graphics memory in preperation for games that come out 5 years from now.

Yeah, I dunno why I'm complaining. I guess I should count my blessings and just say "fuck yeah! I invested in a gaming PC that can run anything!" I just don't think it's fair that Console gamers should get a comparitively raw deal.

They haven't had a raw deal at all

They probably spent between 1/10th and 1/4th (original PS3 launch price) what you have. To only get a 40 player nerf is a pretty good deal actually.

On another note: why oh why did you spend that much on a PC? £650 is about the limit before you hit a diminishing returns brick wall! Hell, you can get a hd6870 cfx system for £700 today.

 

[TheComfyChair]

If MAG can have up to 256 players in the same game on a PS3, and Battlefield games sell on the promise of their large-scale multiplayer (something which they helped to INVENT), then I don't see why the developers didn't focus on, I dunno, lowering graphical quality to make room for additional players?

But nah, they're scared of people whining about texture differences.

Hey, if you don't like it go play it on the PC. As a console player and one who enjoys great graphics, I am excited. While I was more or less hoping for 16v16 and not 12v12, I will still take what I can get.

Well hey, I just looked down and realised i was typing away on a £1,500 gaming PC that I blew my savings on just to give it 8GB of RAM and 4GB of graphics memory in preperation for games that come out 5 years from now.

Yeah, I dunno why I'm complaining. I guess I should count my blessings and just say "fuck yeah! I invested in a gaming PC that can run anything!" I just don't think it's fair that Console gamers should get a comparitively raw deal.

They haven't had a raw deal at all

They probably spent between 1/10th and 1/4th (original PS3 launch price) what you have. To only get a 40 player nerf is a pretty good deal actually.

On another note: why oh why did you spend that much on a PC? £650 is about the limit before you hit a diminishing returns brick wall! Hell, you can get a hd6870 cfx system for £700 today.

Well, a grand is more the cost of a high-end gaming Pc.

Also, I went out on a crazed impulse and spent £500 alone on the graphics card, a Radeon HD6990 4 gig, twice as much as usual for hardcore PC gamers and 4-8 times more than most games will ever need.

I also spent about £100 on an Antec case with 6 built-in fans that could fit all the parts inside it and still adequately cool it off. Factor in additional costs for an extra Disk Drive and a copy of Win7 64X, and then add that to the 1000w power supply, the 3.0 quad-core double-layered processor, four 2GB sticks of corsair ram memory, and BAM. Expensive PC, but I'll be running this baby until 2020 before it starts to seem dated, discounting OS changes. I like to think I'm saving in the long run, plus I get user-generated content, far more control over my online gaming, infinite backwards-compatibility and customisable controls. Remember how ancient the PS2 seemed compared to a worthy gaming PC a few years after it's release? that's where I'm at with my PS3 right now.

Now I just have to sit here with my fingers crossed, gleefully awaiting the day when I can actually put it through it's paces playing a game that actually challenges it. On that day, I'll no longer feel like a money-wasting twat.

It's not money wasted if you're enjoying owning it Sure, it's nowhere near the most money efficient build ever (mine is a OC'd 4.7GHz i5-2500K/hd5870 @1GHz build w/8GB RAM for about a total current value of £700 with an antec 902 case, which is bang on for the value for money watershed point, albeit the case being expensive) but you'll enjoy it

The major issue with PC gaming though is this: spending £1500 now will get you far less than spending £1500 over 10 years. 3 mid range £500 PC's are better because although the first one is less powerful, the second is just as powerful and the third will kick it's ass. For example the £500 hd6990 will be kicked in the proverbial balls by the next ~£300 hd7970 and then the £150 card of 2013 and so on. It's just how it is. It's too late to do anything now, but in the future just consider spending a bit less at once. Don't worry though, enough of the system will be usable for a long time that any upgrades you'll need to maintain high end gaming (probably in about 4 years) will be small ones (like a simple gpu change or RAM upgrade).

Basically, if you're going to get a card that plays the most modern graphically intensive new releases at more than 100fps on the resolution you're playing at, don't

Nutshell: Spending three times as much will generally only get you an extra 18 months of higher end gaming, which is normally about an extra third of a computers high end gaming lifetime.

 

[Megacherv]

If MAG can have up to 256 players in the same game on a PS3, and Battlefield games sell on the promise of their large-scale multiplayer (something which they helped to INVENT), then I don't see why the developers didn't focus on, I dunno, lowering graphical quality to make room for additional players?

But nah, they're scared of people whining about texture differences.

MAG was built up on the basis of 256 player multiplayer, whilst BF3 has a single-player campaign that has to look and feel amazing, and they want the multiplayer to share that.

 

[Nouw]

Well this certainly makes me sad but since most games on the console have less players I'm still somewhat happy. As long as the maps aren't too huge so that they're just right for 24 people.

 

[TheComfyChair]

Battlefield 3 plays like a dream too.

.>

It's not breaking NDA if I don't say directly! You can only infer and imply!

 

[Xyphon]

Even though the 24 player limit leaves a bad taste in my mouth, I understand that they needed to make it so low. My main fear was how much they were scaling down the maps. Despite BC 2 maps being of a good size, they felt very linear.

If the maps are as open as 1943 maps are, then I'll be happy.

 

[C95J]

24 players is good. I was just playing a Battlefield: BC2 game, 8v8. So the more players the better. Also, as some other people have said, I am slightly worried about the maps being too big for the number of players in the game.

But that is something we will just have to wait to find out

 

[WanderingFool]

They did a good job with it. I'm glad, because I have a crap computer and this looks like it'll give Crysis a run for it's money.

Well, probably not, but the point is my computer won't handle it.

Im buying it on console for that same reason. I love gaming on the PC now, but I dont have a good enough PC to stand a wisper of a chance...

 

[MoNKeyYy]

"The biggest difference between the PC and console version of Battlefield 3 is that we have 64 players on PC and 24 players maximum on console..."

The amount I don't care about having fewer players is incredible. 24 is still more than enough people to have an encredibly enjoyable multiplayer experience, as long as the core gameplay is the same. This does absolutely nothing to discourage me from buying the game.

 

[Sulgoth]

I would actually have expected them to hit the FOV and texture quality. Less to render, less to load.

 

[Xandre]

I am going to be honest here, some of the most fun I've had has been on the lower-populated servers. The issue the devs have to deal with is making a map that is suited to the number of people playing it - just like 24 on a map for 64 would feel exceedinly empty, 64 on a map made for 24 would feel far too crowded. As a gamer, the best maps I've played are not the shiniest or the newest, but the best balanced ones.

And Xyphon, can I assume you only play Rush mode on BFBC2? It might just be moi, but Conquest mode doesn't feel as linear as Rush does.

Also, looking at trailers, etc. I'm starting to think BF3 is just BF2 with boomy on the buildings...

 

[FinalHeart95]

...So?

That's a really minor thing. I mean 64 players IS better, but it's not enough of a difference to matter to me at all, really.

 

[-Samurai-]

As long as the maps don't feel empty, I don't mind having to kill the same few people over and over. Sure, the battles won't feel as huge, but I'm sure it'll be just as fun as previous BC games, and that's all I care about.

Also; Please bring back Heavy Metal. That map is easily the best map I've ever played on in any game.

 

[Frostbite3789]

This makes me sad.

Not because the decision was dumb, but because now the game looks like it might actually be lots of fun on the PC which sucks because I have already decided not to buy any EA games for the PC so long as EA tries to shove this piece of shit thing called Origin down my throat.

Retail copies are your friend.

I never understood the sudden resistance to retail copies. The only thing Steam offers that is any better than driving to the store is sales. Outside of that, after buying the game, you have to then wait hours on end for it download. You know, far longer than it would've taken to drive to the store, buy the disc and just install it.

OT: Why are some people acting shocked? This is the same if not more players than you've gotten in recent CoD iterations on consoles.

 

[Saulkar]

While I am hyped for this game, my true excitement stems from this:

 

[-IT-]

This makes me sad.

Not because the decision was dumb, but because now the game looks like it might actually be lots of fun on the PC which sucks because I have already decided not to buy any EA games for the PC so long as EA tries to shove this piece of shit thing called Origin down my throat.

You only have to use origin if you buy a digital copy of BF3 through origin, if you buy the retail version you can avoid origin.