DICE producer Patrick Liu has moved to assure players of the console versions of Battlefield 3 that they won't be getting less off a game than their PC counterparts.
"It has the same amount of destruction and the same amount of visual fidelity. It'a also a misconception I've seen on the internet that the console version won't have jets - that's not true.
"We've scaled the maps accordingly for console so it makes the pacing all right and the balancing is good," Liu added. "If you play a big Conquest map then the map is balanced accordingly."
DICE CEO Patrick Soderlund said in March that Battlefield 3 was capable off supporting the same player count as current FPS quantity king MAG for PS3.
"A lot of people ask us about 64 versus 128 or 256 players. Technically, we can go to 256, we've tried it," he revealed. "We play tested with 128. You've got to make a game that's fun to play and, arguably, we think that the most fun you can have is when it's between 32 and 40 players."
Check out some 64-player PC action - including jets - on Battlefield 3's Caspian Border map here.
Comments
38 comments so far...
charliecheswick on 23 Sep '11 said:
I think 32 players on the console versions is pretty much bang-on. I'd like to know what their definition of smaller maps is in relation to the console game,as the maps on B:BC2 are huge ( was going to put "were huge" but,well,i still play the fecker ).
kirankara on 23 Sep '11 said:
Can't believe they still having to defend this lol
If you really think you being cheated somehow, buy a pc . Simple answer. You get what you pay for in life.
KK-Headcharge78 on 23 Sep '11 said:
I would be far more worried if they had tried to make it work with larger numbers, as long as it runs as smoothly lesser numbers is fine by me. In fact I personally prefer 15-30 players in modes in other games where there is more it can turn into a bit of joke i.e ground war.
TheLastDodo on 23 Sep '11 said:
Higher player count does not equal better game.
BFBC2 was fine with 24 players.
I'd love to know where the "no jets in BF3 on consoles" originated from. Whoever thought that one up obviously forgot that BF1943, a small downloadable title, contained jets.
Moorpheus on 23 Sep '11 said:
I played it on PS3 at Eurogamer yesterday (just the single player Operation Guillotine stuff - the queue for MP was enormous)
Whilst (obviously) graphically inferior to the PC version, I still had a blast and can see it as being pretty damn awesome when it launches next month
kirankara on 23 Sep '11 said:
They're scaled according to match size basically from the pc version . So whereas pc version has a map that's 200 m2 for example supporting 64 players ( pc version is dynamically scaleable too, so if only 32 players filling game the maps are smaller to compensate) the console version with 32 is on map sized 100m2. Thats basically gist I got from reading what the devs said. They basically trying to keep proportions of people per square metre same on pc and console.
Bc2 maps were small according to bf fans btw( mind boggles as I thought they were huge lol )
kirankara on 23 Sep '11 said:
Activision ??? Lol
charliecheswick on 23 Sep '11 said:
Thanks Kirankara.
jim2wheels on 23 Sep '11 said:
Probably originated from Twitter or Facebook - most people talk nothing but s**te on those things. Idle minds etc.
I thought 1943 planes were all props?
KesMonkey on 23 Sep '11 said:
The console versions are limted to 24 players, not 32. Yes the maps in BFBC2 are huge if compared to, say, CoD, but they are dwarfed by the 64 player maps of BF2.
spam23 on 23 Sep '11 said:
if anything console gamers are getting more, they'll be getting a menu screen.
KMakawa on 23 Sep '11 said:
It originated from our EA forums, where they were fearing that the consoles couldn't handle the amount of things onscreen/on platform as say the PC can.
Think about it.. Every player running around, every little/big explosion, every vehicle, every muzzle flash, jet, particles and pretty much everything else all happening at the same time.. processing power is gonna take a huge hit. But people thought because the consoles have lesser numbers, a few things like jets would be cut too... in order for the game to perform at optimum.
Just a little fear that spread really, obviously it isnt the case ^^
kirankara on 23 Sep '11 said:
The maps are dwarfed by bf2, but bf2 was more vehicle orientated than bc2, and if u have 64 players , you need larger maps, otherwise pace of game is too much. That why cod has smaller maps, as it has smaller number of players, and they want to make it frantic. Whereas on bf they aim for slower pace by increasing map size.
Each dev has an ideal person per m2 for maps basically based on the pace they want game to be played at.
KesMonkey on 23 Sep '11 said:
Very true. BFBC2's maps are designed perfectly for the player count and the vehicle count. BC2's maps are very infantry focused, with a few vehicles for support, whereas BF2 has huge open maps with a large number of vehicles; it's quite a different beast.
A lot of BF vets like myself were originally unimpressed by the maps, because of all the choke points and the lower vehicle count. But, eventually, most of us grew to love it, in a different way to BF2.
kirankara on 23 Sep '11 said:
'kes
"Very true. BFBC2's maps are designed perfectly for the player count and the vehicle count. BC2's maps are very infantry focused, with a few vehicles for support, whereas BF2 has huge open maps with a large number of vehicles; it's quite a different beast.
A lot of BF vets like myself were originally unimpressed by the maps, because of all the choke points and the lower vehicle count. But, eventually, most of us grew to love it, in a different way to BF2.
suppose its like going from cod to bc2 or something. A total shell shock.
i dont think bf2 would have appealed to me as much as bc2 tbh, as I much prefer being on foot to in vehicles, although blowing some camping SOB up whilst he sits in building is priceless lol
KesMonkey on 23 Sep '11 said:
I LOVE the vehicles. I'm fairly handy with Tanks, APCs, Helos and Jets. One of the great things about BF2 was that you could play infantry only versions of the maps. This is something you'll be able to do with BF3 aswell (PC version anyway, not sure about consoles). In infantry only modes, all the war machines will be removed, leaving you with only transport vehicles. And another great thing about BF3 is the introduction of Team Deathmatch on both consoles and PC. This will be a straight up 12 vs 12 match with no vehicles at all. They're certainly trying to cater to everyone.
kirankara on 23 Sep '11 said:
Ha Ha , they needed somewhere for cod players to go lol, otherwise everyone would have ignored them all for being lone wolfs
TOKEN on 23 Sep '11 said:
Of course were getting less i was a big Pc BF2 player 64 players squad play was awesome large maps,dont tell me that BF3 64 players is rubbish cause it looks the biz with large maps with jets to buzz around.
Sorry but its just another cash cow.
I bet onlive gets the pc version.
kirankara on 23 Sep '11 said:
Ffs it's like being in a "special" school in these forums sometimes.
I think we established that there's a difference between pc version and console versions. They've never said otherwise , and they're tot stating it's literally Less , as we all know that in terms of performance and visuals etc the consoles are clearly getting less, as they are in terms of number of players and map sizes.
They're just stating that the game will be no less fun, as number of players on the smaller maps will make it a fun game, and you won't feel cheated by this.
Red Deer01 on 23 Sep '11 said:
Great. Now i'm left here wondering what the 128 player playtest was like....
TOKEN on 23 Sep '11 said:
special school cause im special yeah.
TOKEN on 23 Sep '11 said:
cheated.
kirankara on 23 Sep '11 said:
Is that what mommy used to tell you when the other kids made fun of you?
TOKEN on 23 Sep '11 said:
yeah while they were stamping on your head.
kirankara on 23 Sep '11 said:
"Is that what mommy used to tell you when the other kids made fun of you?
yeah while they were stamping on your head."
Ooh feisty, I do like em feisty, but definitely prefer them when they make sense with their responses .
charliecheswick on 23 Sep '11 said:
You guys need to find a field and have a battle in it,mono a mono!
kirankara on 24 Sep '11 said:
I don't fight disabled people, I have morals. lol
I should apologize to him tbf, I was probably a bit out of order, but he did take it a little more seriously than I intended , and got his knickers in a twist.
Gamer4LIFE2011 on 24 Sep '11 said:
"Buy Edge online and have it delivered to your door." LoL I wouldn't want that pile of sh*t magazine delivered to my door for free! ! !
+ Shame they won't make BF3 as good looking as KZ3 tho. These multi-format game makers can but just don't? God knows why? I want graphics like KZ3 when i buy FPS now not graphics that have to look the same as the Xbox 360 version. Oh well.
MonkeyWrench127 on 24 Sep '11 said:
Players will be sold short, PC version will cost about £10-15 less than console with more features and undoubtedly some kind of mod support...
Oh wait... consoles will get dedicated servers
the688 on 24 Sep '11 said:
Oh, yes they are.
Might still be pretty damned good for the console crowd. But reduced features at a higher price looks a lot to me like "less".
Oh well ... *cuddles monster gaming rig*
turdles on 24 Sep '11 said:
Agreed, at the very least the people are getting less for they're money since PC games cost less...
SpandexArmstrong on 24 Sep '11 said:
Arent ppl sick of playing this same f**king s**t yet?!
KK-Headcharge78 on 24 Sep '11 said:
Oh dear mate, whatever makes you happy
kirankara on 24 Sep '11 said:
There's an Indian saying about " chewing the chewed" and this applies to all games and films IMO. No new ideas, just a different combination of influences and ideas that exist elsewhere and refinement of them, but if it's fun and well made fun, well that's good enough for me.
I do however get fed up of listening to moaning minnies like you
ps3TheMagicNumba on 24 Sep '11 said:
Sounds like a bit of a Bilbo Blaggins to me!
"Um yes, we capped the number of players on console to make it more fun...but the PC's still getting 64."
Unless they aren't so bothered about the somewhat less lucrative PC market?
Ali_ on 25 Sep '11 said:
Having tried to play the lagfest that is Homefront on Onlive, it'll probably get the N64 version. It might just be able to cope.
gogo65uk on 25 Sep '11 said:
I will be getting ps3 and pc versions of this game and don't care about differences graphically so much I just have friends with different gaming preferences. I can bet 100% that ps3 controller will offer more fun for me than mouse and keyboard regardless of what elitist people say. Mw3 ill get on xbox coz I have friends on that system that won't budge an inch (duh!)
sonic_uk on 26 Sep '11 said:
Oh man, another Battlefield 3 Console vs PC flamebait headline. Oh hell go on Cvg, I'll bite...
Don't give two f***s about the Multiplayer mode, but after playing a few minutes of the Single Player Campaign on Ps3 at Eurogamer on Friday I would have to say the actual headline is correct. The graphics are absolutely unbelievable. I'm getting it on 360 (I own both but prefer the 360's pad for fps), but Ps3 owners have nothing to worry about from my experience. It looked and ran great. Just buy it for whichever machine you want to play it on and stop with the hate already.