DICE has promised Battlefield 3 fans that the cuts its made on the console version of the game are the cleverest compromises it could have made.
DICE boss Patrick Bach explained: "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 rest is more or less the same: we use the same engine, the same technology, the same animation system, the same lighting system. Our aim is to give the player the exact same experience and not try to dumb down the console version.
"If you want the same quality of game, I would say it's really, really hard. We tried to get more players in [to the console version] but then you need to scale down all the graphics, scale down all the destructibility, and sometimes you need to scale down all the map sizes. Everything is a compromise on: where do you cut?
"You could argue that other games do [fewer] players as well. There are games that do less, and there are games that do more. We don't see games that have more players as a better experience, so having more players per se doesn't automatically give you a better experience."
He told German site GameZone.de: "Everything is a compromise. It's not that we're evil or stupid. We didn't choose not to have more players - we would love to do 64 players on console but then we would have to cut away so much; people would get very upset that it looked worse, played worse and wasn't as fun as the PC version. We would never do that because the fun is always more important."
Bach confirmed that there would be jets in the console version of the game, adding: "That's another reason: if we had more players [on console] you might have to take away vehicles because there's a lot of data that has to go through the network and the CPUs. If you had more vehicles, that would mean less players and vice versa."
When asked if the maps in both versions were the same, Bach added: "More or less. When we say they are smaller, it's not that we have cut them in half. But we tried to compact them slightly to keep the action up. If you compare it to Battlefield: Bad Company 2, the maps weren't really small on console. We actually had huge maps even for console. We have the same kind of angle on it right now [in Battlefield 3]. We want to create the same experience for PC as for consoles."
Battlefield 3 is due for release on all three formats in October.
Comments
40 comments so far...
liveswired on 26 Jul '11 said:
...waiting for the stampede of ps3 gamers claiming poor port...completely ignoring the obvious fact that their machine is now 6 years behind PC technology and only has 256mb ram. Roll in comparisons to Uncharted and Killzone 3 which are completely linear corridor games in SP and features non destructible environments in MP
chunkyboymania on 26 Jul '11 said:
Well that's fair do's I guess. I was angry yesterday with the news that their "telemetry" said console gamers wanted 24 player only... obvious excuse. Also I remember DICE saying they could do 256 players in Battlefield 3 guess they were talking a bout a PC version there as well.
I will still be buying this and I'm sure it will be a lot of fun even though personally I wouldn't have minded a graphically inferior option with 64 players.
dragonjim on 26 Jul '11 said:
Uncharted has a story and characters unlike battlefield, some gamers don't actually care about fancy lighting, realistic muzzle flashes and destructible scenery.
rivariad on 26 Jul '11 said:
i dont give a f.ck about ps3 but uncharted is not a linear corridor game boy, its a lifelike scenery all the way
silversun_111 on 26 Jul '11 said:
With EA having an exclusive partnership with Playstation, surely XBOX version won't be as good of a port than the Playstation 3's!?! Why would they enter a deal knowing they will be getting the s**tty end of the stick? I'm waiting till I try the BETA on both consoles before I lodge my pre-order.
Lurf on 26 Jul '11 said:
PC version will own! I hope the console versions will suck and have people move back to PC. PC is just a better platform. We need more revenue there so developers can stop being held back by stupid console noobs and focus on PC.
TheLastDodo on 26 Jul '11 said:
Not too keen on port myself, more of an Irn Bru kinda guy.
dubplate240 on 26 Jul '11 said:
I'm really looking forward to this on consoles, enjoyed BC and BC2 so why won't this be any different (PS3 version pre-ordered). Clearly it'll be more impressive on the PC but for me there's no way I'm getting back into chasing the upgrade dragon for just one game. Would rather save the cash for the next gen of consoles.
WHERESMYMONKEY on 26 Jul '11 said:
I love uncharted but he's right. Its a corridor shooter. Its just the bricks have been repaced by trees.
KMakawa on 26 Jul '11 said:
I see people are reading into the Playstation "exclusive partnership" more then ever.
You do know that there were no perks to that partnership other then having an additional game bundled into the purchase right?
And that will always be the case until I see any proof that they will get any additional content relating to the game. DICE are not one to kick a community out of a project, nor perform "lesser" for that community purely out of a partnership. If you are thinking that, look a different way as it will never be the case.
Battlefield 3 on the PS3 gets BF 1943 bundled in on the disc, nothing more, nothing less.
KMakawa on 26 Jul '11 said:
Upgrades has actually slowed down to be honest, it wasnt as agressive as upgrading was back in the years. You can comfortably upgrade and last say 5+ years before the need to upgrade again.
silversun_111 on 26 Jul '11 said:
I'm waiting till I try the BETA on both consoles before I lodge my pre-order
Surely the deal will have some sort of influence. But obviously we don't know till we get proof. I was purely speculating, which is nothing to get flustered about.
gmcb007 on 26 Jul '11 said:
Congratulations on completely derailing the point of the article just to induce a fanboy war.
nolim on 26 Jul '11 said:
What is the nature of this exclusivity deal Sony have with EA? I've not heard anything about it until it was mentioned here a few times.
TheLastDodo on 26 Jul '11 said:
Well no-one knows for sure, but Sony are obviously paying EA to throw in free bonuses for PS3 versions of EA games, most likely because of MS buying timed exclusivity for GTAIV and CoD DLC.
Examples:
Dead Space Extraction included with Dead Space 2
MOH Frontline included with Medal of Honor
Battlefield 1943 included with Battlefield 3
KMakawa on 26 Jul '11 said:
Basically buying the PS3 version will get you battlefield 1943 for free. Nothing special so far^^
MPH on 26 Jul '11 said:
I prefer train stations.
Ais4Audi on 26 Jul '11 said:
Id like to see a comparision between the 360 and ps3 as i have both, that will get the fanboy arguments going good style..
The Bossman on 26 Jul '11 said:
I'm stunned that the developers have done as well as they have so far, to be honest. 256MB of memory is pitiful. I'm buying a new PC soon for just over £300 that has 4GB of memory, and the PS3 was over £400 when it came out with 256MB of memory. OK technology has changed over the last 5 years but still, they could have implemented at least 1 GB of memory into the PS3 and be in profit now, 5 years into its lifespan. I'm still split on whether to get BF3 or not, on PC it looks stunning so might get it for that and use a PS3 controller for it. Definitely getting MW3 because what you see is what you get, and I expect nothing less from COD these days.
SavageEvil on 26 Jul '11 said:
Poster number 1 is an idiotic moron obviously you can't comprehend that both consoles will be limited to 24 players, why you decided to talk down the PS3 is beyond me...waste of skin.
Not sure what people are going to complain about as 24 players is a lot of people on one map. I remember playing Socom on PS2 with 32 players that right there is a mess of players. 64 players on a map is just too damn much, that's just chaos and how would you coordinate with the other squads? 24 players is great, 3 teams of 4 per side I think it should play out fairly well. Plus we get destructibility and vehicles, seriously why are you going to complain? Just because it's not the exact same as the PC? Who cares you're not playing it on a PC so why complain about it? People love to complain about every little thing and for what? They don't even know themselves, they do it so much they feel awkward if they don't complain.
The game looks ace and if the visuals are anything to go by, this just trumps the look of BFBC2 by a couple of miles. Dive has been added, going prone what's not to like...well that combat knife thing needs a bit of work or at least a ready state in which you can launch a quicker knife attack. Here's hoping that the BETA comes out soon for the consoles as I want to get my feet wet as I did in the BFBC2 BETA.
chunkyboymania on 26 Jul '11 said:
It's obviously a matter of opinion but I think 64 players is the perfect amount and with DICE's boasts of BF3 being capable of 256 players, 24 is a bit of let a down for me personally. That's not bitching it's just an opinion.
Having said that I'm still well on board for this so roll on the beta... do I need to buy Medal Of Honour to access it though?
Tom tom tom on 26 Jul '11 said:
Meh, let the pc fanboys go crazy claiming they are superior.battlefield is good but I'm glad to see the hype finally come down a little. Graphics mean nothing. Let them cling on to battlefield and crysis 1.
sodapopcan on 26 Jul '11 said:
adding more ram to the consoles wouldn't have made them much better than they are now. the ram in consoles is dedicated to the games . the ram in computers also has to keep the os and the programs running in the background . if you wanted more out of a console you need to up the cpu clocks for either better A.I. or more objects in game. also a better graphics card with higher speeds for more geometry in the maps . the ps3 can only have so many polys before it starts to lag . those are two main things i see that need changing . and those are two main things that the pc has over the consoles
moist gash on 27 Jul '11 said:
cool story. Enjoy the dumbed down version of the game of the year...
sonic_uk on 27 Jul '11 said:
Stop masturbating over your motherboard. Bloody Elistists annoy the f*** outta me.
Oh, and Bf3 goty? Rofl
You obviously arnt aware Deus Ex is out next month? Bf3 will be a averagely good (albiet short and predictable) game but will be remembered for its graphics more than anything else while Deus Ex will be amazing and will be a damm site longer with a hell of a lot more gameplay options/replay value.
moist gash on 27 Jul '11 said:
Stop masturbating over your motherboard. Bloody Elistists annoy the f*** outta me.
Oh, and Bf3 goty? Rofl
You obviously arnt aware Deus Ex is out next month? Bf3 will be a averagely good (albiet short and predictable) game but will be remembered for its graphics more than anything else while Deus Ex will be amazing and will be a damm site longer with a hell of a lot more gameplay options/replay value.
cool story. Enjoy the dumbed down version of the game of the year...
Raptor117 on 27 Jul '11 said:
First, the console gamers are happy that they have the beautiful Resistance 3 and Uncharted 3 games.
Then, when PC's BF3 looks amazing, suddenly the console gamers say graphic means nothing. Story and gameplay does.
So which is it? Graphics or story or gameplay? Which one do you prefer?
I prefer all. An amazing looking game with great story and fun gameplay. Bioshock has a good story, nice gameplay and looks better on the PC so yeah, I can understand why the console gamers are grumbling. You don't want the other kids have more than you do, we get it.
Look, the consoles' net code can only support 24 players with this game so they shrunk the map. If it any bigger, we will have 24 players running around looking for enemies for hours. The PC will host 64 players so the map should be bigger.
Any smaller we will see the game ends in mere minutes. Imagine 64 players in a map the size of a container box. Brilliant.
Deus Ex is too brownish orange. Deus Ex has a fog like shroud have engulfed the whole world. It's either dark at night, artificially muted indoors or poo like ambience during the "day". Will the environment really go that bad in the future?
sonic_uk on 27 Jul '11 said:
Who's grumbling when the only difference between the Pc and consoles is a slight resoultion, aa, and fps boost (which is heavily dependant on your rig), all of which is barely noticable in the real world. Seems the only people moaning are the Pc Elite who seem to think they deserve to be treated as royalty and cant accept the fact the console versions of games still look amazing.
Bioshock looks better on the Pc? Looks the bloody same to me except it runs with a lot more stability and a lot less hassle on the consoles. Oh and Deus Ex filled with fog? What?!
TheLastDodo on 27 Jul '11 said:
You've got to admit though, it's going to be hilarious in four months time when you're screaming about BF3 been a s**tty console port.
moist gash on 27 Jul '11 said:
you must not have read the article..
I just love it that this game was built for the PC, not the consoles, because console hardware is out of date. BF games are meant to be played with lots of people on big maps. You thumb jockeys have gotten the tables turned on you this time and it's great to hear the QQing typically reserved for us PC people. Maybe it's time to stop playing super mario brothers kart supreme and get a real gaming system for big kids. Enjoy your SP games!
sonic_uk on 27 Jul '11 said:
Wow, the idiocy of your comments amazes me. Super Mario Bros Kart Supreme? I have no interest in that (besides, no Super Mario kart game will ever hold a candle to the original on Snes). Tables turned? What tables? The console versions of Bf3 look amazing and unlike the PC version will run flawlessly out of the box first and every time. And I will enjoy my Single Player games thanks, the way gaming is meant to be played - first and foremost as far as I'm concerned. You can stick your Multiplayer frag fest where the sun don't shine. As for "get a real gaming system" if you bothered to read my sig you would see I already own several, (including a Gaming PC I built myself) so not entirely sure what you're supposed to be insinuating. At least I don't look down my nose at other gamers who decide to play the same effing game on their system of choice. Who cares? Only the Elite it would seem.
nightdrifter05 on 30 Jul '11 said:
cool story. Enjoy the dumbed down version of the game of the year...
But it's not dumbed down in anyway. You're just a PC elitist who is to stupid to realize PC gaming is all but dead. I was PC gaming before you were born and even I've moved on to console for most game's (except Fallout/Oblivion/GTA due to the extensive mods). Battlefield 3 isn't dumbed down in ANY way except for the fact it's 24 players in all mode's on console. But I bet you don't realize Rush mode (the best mode in the game) WON'T SUPPORT 64 players on PC. You'll be only allowed 24 player's in that mode on PC as well so I guess you're game is "dumbed" down at well. Oh, and BF3 GOTY? That's a joke. Battlefield 3 won't even have as many sell's as MW3 has pre-orders and it defintely doesn't stand a CHANCE at Goty. If the Alpha is anything to go of off for this game it's identical to Battlefield 2 in EVERY way except the prone and the fact you can only spawn on squad leaders now.
Ali_ on 31 Jul '11 said:
Very generous of you. I see diplomacy and lack of self centred egotism still evades the PC community.
xPreatorianx on 4 Sep '11 said:
You have never played a good quality PC game then. There's a huge improvement besides a slight resolution, aa, and FPS boost. There's better dynamic shadows, better lighting, POM, DX11 which brings tessellation etc, better shadows with DX11, realistic water using tessellation, etc. I mean the list goes on and on. Like I said you have no idea what your talking about. For instance the Crysis 2 DX 11 upgrade made the game look completely different. We got all the DX11 features, plus we got higher res textures. With the PC you have the ability to get a good 5X better quality textures and higher fidelity models because you have a lot more ram both for the main system and the video card. PC video cards can go up to 3GB of Vram. Which allows a hell of a lot more then a "slight increase in resolution, aa, and FPS." Likewise I should add that even a mid end video card has 1GB of ram which is 768mb of ram more then the consoles - A huge difference even at that level in terms of what you can do.
It seems that the console fanboys love to dog the PC platform at every turn and love to talk about the amazing graphics for exclusive titles such as UC, Resistance, God of War, KIllzone, etc but yet when the PC is the target platform for the best experience, you guys forget all of that. Oh and plus as the article says we get more max players. So again that's a hell of a lot more then a "sight increase in resolution, aa, and FPS." Nice try though.
THANK f**king GOD the PC platform is being treated with respect for once! Good on dice. There aren't many developers left that consider PC a competitive platform to develop for. Those developers are ID, Crytek(well kind of), Dice, and Valve. (that I can think of off the top of my head.) But that is actually changing slowly but surely. Which is really good. PC will be the king once again soon.
Again for once the PC platform is the target platform for development. So why can't we boast? I mean you console folks do it every single day at every chance you get. So why can't we bask in the glory of our platform for once?
BTW while I am a PC fanboy, I do own both the 360 and PS3. They are good platforms don't get me wrong. BUT, the PC is my favorite platform to game on for obvious reasons. Sorry I want the full package. Graphics, gameplay, story, etc. I'm tired of getting ports that have decent or gimped gameplay, good story, and s**tty graphics. Just like you console folks - I deserve the best experience on my chosen platform. I want a game that takes full advantage of my platform. This is one of those games.
PC gaming is far from dead. Maybe you haven't checked the sales charts recently...or...at all? Retail chains don't accurately convey the PC gaming market. Valve doesn't exactly reveal their sales figures now do they? The PC platform is alive and well or have you forgotten that BF:BC2 won that platform contest for the map pack? Hmm. It's a dieing platform but yet we won the contest? Actually in all honesty the PC platform is rising up again taking back it's throne as the definitive platform slowly but surely. It has had a resurgence in the gaming world. But I guess your time on consoles has twisted and warped to your perception of the platform you abandoned.
datopassassin on 7 Sep '11 said:
Dice is lazy. Consoles can support well over 64 players but they obviously don't know how to do it. Maybe they should take some lessons from other game developers who know how to pull off superior online multiplayer...
TheLastDodo on 7 Sep '11 said:
DICE have stated BF3 could easily have a higher player count on consoles but they would have to sacrifice the quality in other areas for this to happen. MAG can do 256 players but thats cos it has s**t graphics and no destructible environments, Killzone 2 can do 32 but thats cos it has no vehicle's or destructible environments, Resistance 2 can do 60 players but thats because it has no vehicle's or destructible environments.
Do you see a pattern forming here?
Personally, after playing some Bad Company 2 tonight, 24 players is just dandy.
Also to all the elitist PC snob's out there talking about consoles getting the "dumbed down" versions, google this:
Battlefield 3 consoles server browser.
Consoles 1-0 PC.
samwel762 on 3 Oct '11 said:
Congratulations, 5 years after first launch and consoles have finally got a server browser... THAT is progression
I'm sorry but in now way can that be counted as a win over pc...
TheLastDodo on 4 Oct '11 said:
Congratulations on digging up an old topic.
Server browsers have been on consoles since 2008, maybe even before on PS3, I wouldn't know I only got mine for Xmas 2008 but Resistance 2, released in 2008, has a server browser of sorts.
Congratulations on not doing any research
.
sonic_uk on 14 Oct '11 said:
Yawn. Try all you want - I own a gaming PC which I built myself, have studied to become a computer technician and have been playing games since 1982 so I think I have a fair idea what I'm talking about. It doesn't matter what hardware specs you throw around, the fact of the matter is the game does not look any different apart from a slight AA and resolution boost which is heavily dependent on your hardware. Crysis 2 is a classic case in point which I'm glad you brought up. Dx11 version vs Dx9 for example. There are very slight differences there that you cannot see unless you put the game side by side and even then it does not really look better in Dx11, just different lighting and a few new effects (such as unrealistic horrible jelly-like water effects). Add into that the drm factor, random crashes (which any PC Eliteist will say they've never had - and I'm Santa clause btw), having to fiddle around for days with config files to get stuff to run properly (or even at all) and you can see why I abandoned PC gaming a few years ago. The only games I get any enjoyment out of playing on the PC are older 90's and early 00's games which are exclusive to that platform (stuff like the first unreal for example) and Crysis (which is out now for consoles and looks and runs far superior to the standard PC version anyway). Take those rose tinted Alienware Eliteist glasses off.
mincedbeef on 14 Oct '11 said:
Well you obviously haven't got a clue what you're talking about.
I'd imagine very few PC players are buying BF3 for the 'Rush' mode, it's a game mode aimed at impatient twitch-loving console gamers and never featured in BF1942, BF2142 or BF2. Conquest is where the real series of Battlefield games thrive with the ability to have air, land and sea battles running simultaneously or helping each other out. Again, something that was lacking in BFBC due to the size of the maps which only allowed about 4 helos in the air at any one time.
Battlefield 2 did have prone - it was the BFBC engine that didn't support it.
Battlefield 2 also had spawn on squad leaders.
The main difference between BF3 and BF2 is the lack of Commander, UAV, Artillery and the SF Soldier class.