if the console version turns out to be a inner-most circle of bf2 sized pc maps, gutted and rebalanced to the point where it's barely recognizable, there is still a glimmer of hope.AnimatorZombie said:Still 24 players on consoles?
if the console version turns out to be a inner-most circle of bf2 sized pc maps, gutted and rebalanced to the point where it's barely recognizable, there is still a glimmer of hope.AnimatorZombie said:Still 24 players on consoles?
Honestly the 32 player version of BF2 maps >>>>> BC2 maps.ghst said:if the console version turns out to be a inner-most circle of bf2 sized pc maps, gutted and rebalanced to the point where it's barely recognizable, there is still a glimmer of hope.
-GOUKI- said:GUYS!
http://www.gameinformer.com/games/battlefield_3/b/pc/default.aspx
Offline Multiplayer:
Online Multiplayer:
Competitive: 64-Player (PC) 24-Player (Console)
OMFG!
Simple answer: because of consoles. Long answer, courtesy of 1943 programmer Gustav Halling: because of consoles' bandwidth limits, and inability to process network data in a speedy manner:
64 players are of course awesome but will all good there is some hurting also. I can assure you that the 24 player limit is not about us being lazy but the experience of a massive battlefield is not bound to the amount of players! And as many of you remember most clan wars where player with 8vs8 or 12vs12 and what we have seen many of the 64-player servers are mostly half-full or having lack of performance.
We have made it sure that Battlefield 1943 will feel big and have a fast pacing, bf1942 actually had very low pacing! If you place 100 people in one room it feels very small, but if you put 100 people on the streets it seems like nothing! 24 players will give us the benefit of having full servers almost all the time and the whole map area is being used!
Beside these design decisions there are technical limitations. There are very restricted bandwidth limits on the consoles and we are networking a lot more then 24 players:
# 24 players are networked
# Almost as many physics driven vehicles with movable and destroyable parts
# All destruction, if a wall is being destroyed on one client we need to update it on all the others, otherwise we could end up with players hiding behind non-existent walls.
If we did remove all destruction and all our vehicles we could have more players. But no other game gives you the wide gaming experience we have!
Darkshier said:Not surprising though. Bad Company 2 was 32 players on PC and 24 on console. Games like this are why I want a new generation of consoles.
I hope to god they bring it back to WWII, so there are no Jets or Helicopters. The only shit that should be flying in the skies are planes, people, and jeeps.EmCeeGramr said:I hope to god there's jets.
Console version gimped. Fucking fuck.-GOUKI- said:GUYS!
http://www.gameinformer.com/games/battlefield_3/b/pc/default.aspx
Offline Multiplayer:
Online Multiplayer:
Competitive: 64-Player (PC) 24-Player (Console)
OMFG!
Kibbles said:Console version gimped. Fucking fuck.
That explanation is bullshit, Frontlines had 50 players on consoles MAG has 256.
Both games have pretty crappy graphicsKibbles said:Console version gimped. Fucking fuck.
That explanation is bullshit, Frontlines had 50 players on consoles MAG has 256.
Did they have destructive environments and vehicles like Bad Company? No. And of course the console versions are gimped, they are years old tech compared to what the PC can offer.Kibbles said:Console version gimped. Fucking fuck.
That explanation is bullshit, Frontlines had 50 players on consoles MAG has 256.
Mrbob said:Gimped? :jakncoke Not at the level of detail Dice is going with in BF3.
PCMasterRace.jpg
-GOUKI- said:GUYS!
http://www.gameinformer.com/games/battlefield_3/b/pc/default.aspx
Offline Multiplayer:
Online Multiplayer:
Competitive: 64-Player (PC) 24-Player (Console)
OMFG!
Ihya said:Could it be any more generic?
I <3 Memes said:If the player limit is 24 players on the console... then there arent going to be any jets. I dont see how jets could fit in a 12v12 game and they really wont build maps and jet mechanics just for the PC. Damnit.
As a flight sim fan, they can keep all of the aircraft, including helicopters, out. They have never done them right in any BF game I've played (BF2, BC2, 1943). Either go realistic (even just a little) or user friendly arcade (I've always like the GTA flight controls), but don't go difficult and arcade.I <3 Memes said:If the player limit is 24 players on the console... then there arent going to be any jets. I dont see how jets could fit in a 12v12 game and they really wont build maps and jet mechanics just for the PC. Damnit.
-GOUKI- said:GUYS!
http://www.gameinformer.com/games/battlefield_3/b/pc/default.aspx
Offline Multiplayer:
Online Multiplayer:
Competitive: 64-Player (PC) 24-Player (Console)
OMFG!
Arucardo said:It has singleplayer too? hmmm, that makes me slightly worried...
They're not difficult at all. I've done rolls over rockets and strafed tanks in the choppas with no problems, and I've never touched a flight sim in my life.Cobra84 said:As a flight sim fan, they can keep all of the aircraft, including helicopters, out. They have never done them right in any BF game I've played (BF2, BC2, 1943). Either go realistic (even just a little) or user friendly arcade (I've always like the GTA flight controls), but don't go difficult and arcade.
Xbox1 had dedicated servers, dude.Darkshier said:From an article about why Battlefield 1943 is only 24 players, I imagine this applies to Battlefield 3 as well....
Not surprising though. Bad Company 2 was 32 players on PC and 24 on console. Games like this are why I want a new generation of consoles.
http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/44624/Battlefield-1943-Why-The-24-Player-Limit
Vinterbird said:Why? Great multiplayer games has had singleplayer parts. And some of us care more about that part then the MP part.
Kibbles said:Console version gimped. Fucking fuck.
That explanation is bullshit, Frontlines had 50 players on consoles MAG has 256.
I <3 Memes said:It's kind of a waste of money and resources when it comes to BF games though. It isnt like any of use who are fans of the series even expected a single player game.
Kibbles said:Console version gimped. Fucking fuck.
the world war one map i made when i was twelve that was just a flat plain with two slits cut in it>>>>>>bc2 maps.Valru said:Honestly the 32 player version of BF2 maps >>>>> BC2 maps.
Vinterbird said:Why? Great multiplayer games has had singleplayer parts. And some of us care more about that part then the MP part.
Babalu. said:You are looking for the wrong game my friend. Battlefield is multiplayer game. Not a singleplayer. They already catered to your console peasant race with bad company. Go play that single player. Real battlefield doesnt need it. It doesn't need it to compete with the medal of honors or call of duty's because it is and always has been above them both in a class of its own.
Vinterbird said:I don't disagree as mentioned, but I still believe that if BF3 needs to be relevant to as many people as possible, they need to bring both SP and MP. And yes they are competing with CoD, they even say so themselves, and they need to if they want to be relevant in the multiplayer space.
If Battlefield 3 launched just as an MP game, I really can't see it doing well at all.
They're bandwidth capped by Microsoft and Sony according to Demize99 from a few months ago.AnimatorZombie said:Still 24 players on consoles?
They made Mirror's Edge and hired a bunch of new people, so I'm willing to give them a shot.commissar said:Singleplayer BF3 could be awesomeor it could be a linear stop and pop fest
weekend_warrior said:I hope it's absolutely nothing like Bad Company 2.
Jtrizzy said:Let's say this game realeases in November. When would it be safe to start building my PC? I guess the safest thing would be to wait till they announce the specs? My recollection with BC2 was that they added HBAO at the end, and a lot of gaffers whose pc's were considered up to date couldn't use that feature.
It's built for consoles too, if you bought your computer a year and a half ago you could still probably play this on high. HBAO is a nice luxury, but far from required for the game to look great (in BC2 at least).Jtrizzy said:Let's say this game realeases in November. When would it be safe to start building my PC? I guess the safest thing would be to wait till they announce the specs? My recollection with BC2 was that they added HBAO at the end, and a lot of gaffers whose pc's were considered up to date couldn't use that feature.
No rush. I have plenty of backlog on my consoles, and the BC2 ps3 GAF community is outstanding(although I've been slacking with my communication and teamwork a bit lately). Not that don't want to go ahead and jump into pc gaming full bore, but in all honesty I probably wouldn't be building one if not for this game. PC tech moves so quickly, it just seems like the prudent thing to do would be wait. I want to use every bit of tech they cram into this game.Nabs said:If you're not in a rush, I say just wait until Intel straightens out their SB mobo problem. You'll be able to build a great PC that'll last a really long time, especially with the way this generation is going.