|
On April 23 2011 11:17 blade55555 wrote:Its the fact that its still a waste getting the ps3 over the PC. PC has better graphics, 32 vs 32. Those 2 things right there are huge. I mean on PS3 multiplayer is 12 vs 12 or something lame? I mean thats going to make bf3 for consoles not feel like a battlefield game imo. Maps will be smaller and everything. But too each his own, if he wants to miss out on what makes battlefield, well battlefield then get the ps3 version not going to affect me.
It's only considered a "waste" from a PC elitist. I'm both a PC and a console gamer, but I play on my PC a lot more. Everyone has different preference like you said.
|
On April 23 2011 11:34 zoLo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2011 11:17 blade55555 wrote:Its the fact that its still a waste getting the ps3 over the PC. PC has better graphics, 32 vs 32. Those 2 things right there are huge. I mean on PS3 multiplayer is 12 vs 12 or something lame? I mean thats going to make bf3 for consoles not feel like a battlefield game imo. Maps will be smaller and everything. But too each his own, if he wants to miss out on what makes battlefield, well battlefield then get the ps3 version not going to affect me. It's only considered a "waste" from a PC elitist. I'm both a PC and a console gamer, but I play on my PC a lot more. Everyone has different preference like you said.
Well its not even PC elitist. Its just if you have a computer that can run it good, why would you buy it for the PS3? I mean the only way I guess is that if your friends don't' have pc's that can run it and have ps3's then I can see it. But other then that I can see no reason too get the ps3 one over the PC.
|
On April 23 2011 11:48 blade55555 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2011 11:34 zoLo wrote:On April 23 2011 11:17 blade55555 wrote:Its the fact that its still a waste getting the ps3 over the PC. PC has better graphics, 32 vs 32. Those 2 things right there are huge. I mean on PS3 multiplayer is 12 vs 12 or something lame? I mean thats going to make bf3 for consoles not feel like a battlefield game imo. Maps will be smaller and everything. But too each his own, if he wants to miss out on what makes battlefield, well battlefield then get the ps3 version not going to affect me. It's only considered a "waste" from a PC elitist. I'm both a PC and a console gamer, but I play on my PC a lot more. Everyone has different preference like you said. Well its not even PC elitist. Its just if you have a computer that can run it good, why would you buy it for the PS3? I mean the only way I guess is that if your friends don't' have pc's that can run it and have ps3's then I can see it. But other then that I can see no reason too get the ps3 one over the PC.
I agree. If the content was similar then I say go with console or PC but the console version has less of the PC version.
While I'm sure it'll still be a fun game, it's just not the same with being limited to smaller maps + 24 players only (as opposed to the option of 64 players on PC version).
I know some people have a preference for smaller or bigger games (less or more players that is), the PC version (I assume) supports multiple map sizes (BF2 did at least) which means you can play small or large or switch once in a while while in the console you'll be limited to the smaller maps only.
______________________
I have a question - for anyone who has BC2, did it have commander mode?
I said in a previous post I dislike the idea of removing commander mode. There were just good times on BF2 thanks to the commander + player cooperating with the team.
While the commander mode was kind of minor and tedious sometimes (in comparison to NS for example), it still was a nice feature that could be updated in BF3 (also the commander was the only player who could speak/talk to players outside of a squad [only the squad leaders though]).
|
BC2 doesn't have a commander mode. It feels more like a CoD game (instead BC2 actually has recoil), but it maintains the vehicle and teamwork aspect.
|
On April 23 2011 13:21 zoLo wrote:
BC2 doesn't have a commander mode. It feels more like a CoD game (instead BC2 actually has recoil), but it maintains the vehicle and teamwork aspect.
Ahh I see, thanks. I wondered if they removed or did not bother with commander mode for BF3 because of that ( that is BC2 was made for consoles. BF3 is also having consoles in mind. Commander mode wouldn't really be fun on consoles + lower player count makes it unnecessary).
I just wanted them to at least have commander mode for PC even if not for consoles :\.
|
It's not battlefield with 24 ppl.. just cod + a few vehicles.
It should be 128 players nowadays, we had 64 player BF a long long time ago. Technology has moved on, so should the game.
|
On April 23 2011 13:32 SilverforceX wrote:
It's not battlefield with 24 ppl.. just cod + a few vehicles.
It should be 128 players nowadays, we had 64 player BF a long long time ago. Technology has moved on, so should the game.
I actually read on wikipedia a long time ago when the first BF3 article was created, it stated 128 players (I was excited) though of course since its a wiki it should be taken with a grain of salt since anyone can edit it.
Anyway if whoever did put 128 players in had an official source for it, I guess they may have planned 128 players but scrapped it.
While 128 players would be nice, I'm not how it would affect gameplay (better, worse, or the same as 64 [take into account they'll increase map size + vehicle counts if they did 128 players]]).
|
On April 23 2011 13:32 SilverforceX wrote:
It's not battlefield with 24 ppl.. just cod + a few vehicles.
It should be 128 players nowadays, we had 64 player BF a long long time ago. Technology has moved on, so should the game.
Well difference is that in 32 vs 32 for BF3 is it will have destructible environments. I think that is the reason they are not going higher. I could be wrong, and probably am but I can see why they didn't go above. Either way i'm just glad because now of days shooters are just lame with like 12 vs 12 and small maps.
BF3 is like the only other shooter that will have a lot of players and all that ^_^
|
On April 23 2011 13:32 SilverforceX wrote:
It's not battlefield with 24 ppl.. just cod + a few vehicles.
It should be 128 players nowadays, we had 64 player BF a long long time ago. Technology has moved on, so should the game.
I agree with this man.
Who cares about destructible environments and all that crap.
|
At a certain point adding more people is rather pointless. There is a point of diminishing returns where even though you add significantly more people the general feel of the game does not change, or changes very little in comparison to the increased volatility of so many connections. I have respect for a company that makes the decision to draw the line at a certain point rather than continuously making a larger number to make a good bullet point on the back of the box. It's like the whole Gillete razor 7 blades bullshit.
|
I'm so pumped for this game, BF2 was by far the shooter I enjoyed most until this day and I heard BF3 will have the same gameplay as BF2 but updated and improved.
/coma till BF3 releases
|
On April 23 2011 15:25 Xife wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2011 13:32 SilverforceX wrote:
It's not battlefield with 24 ppl.. just cod + a few vehicles.
It should be 128 players nowadays, we had 64 player BF a long long time ago. Technology has moved on, so should the game. I agree with this man. Who cares about destructible environments and all that crap.
Imagine Karkand with 64 players, infantry-only.
Imagine all those grenades being thrown around the first flag at the hotel.
Now imagine the same map with 128 players. Twice the grenades.
128 players is a good idea when implemented correctly. Otherwise, it's a pain to play, especially when everyone is trying to push through the same area. The amount of chaos and unorganized action becomes almost unbearable.
IMO, good level design with 64 players is much better than bad level design with 128 players.
|
This game is going to be fucking amazing.
|
Problem with 128 players is that everything has to be balanced around it. Vehicles better have god-like armor or they go down faster than the driver/pilot can get in.
And the pathways on the maps need to be large too, otherwise it's easy pickings for someone camping chokes with a grenade/rocket launcher. And the maps themselves are large too, so campers in general will have a field day.
And then, even if it is balanced for 128 players - there won't be that many players on one server. Most servers will be half-empty with 60~80 players.
|
I haven't played a battlefield since 2142, but I hope this will game will be good. My only real beef so far is: why is it always a damn desert? Why does it have to be the middle east?
Hope the maps will actually be big, so you cant nade spam spawns from other spawns. Also, this kinda looks like CoD4, just with better graphics...
BF2 and BF2142 had nice teamplay modes, and I hope BF3 will also put an emphasis on squad play rather than solo running around.
I also wish they'd put less emphasis on reality, and make the players/AIs stand out a bit more from their environments. My dad loved bf 2 bf2142, but he says he cant see/distinguish human shapes from that 12 min clusterfuck of a video. Games are supposed to be fun and challenging, not be a US Marine Corps recruitment simulator.
Also since this topic seems to be hot: I usually played on 32/48 ppl servers, so I don't really care about 128... just max it at 64 I guess, but no lower than that D:
|
On April 23 2011 18:31 Latham wrote:
I haven't played a battlefield since 2142, but I hope this will game will be good. My only real beef so far is: why is it always a damn desert? Why does it have to be the middle east?
Hope the maps will actually be big, so you cant nade spam spawns from other spawns. Also, this kinda looks like CoD4, just with better graphics...
BF2 and BF2142 had nice teamplay modes, and I hope BF3 will also put an emphasis on squad play rather than solo running around.
I also wish they'd put less emphasis on reality, and make the players/AIs stand out a bit more from their environments. My dad loved bf 2 bf2142, but he says he cant see/distinguish human shapes from that 12 min clusterfuck of a video. Games are supposed to be fun and challenging, not be a US Marine Corps recruitment simulator.
Also since this topic seems to be hot: I usually played on 32/48 ppl servers, so I don't really care about 128... just max it at 64 I guess, but no lower than that D:
Actually, it seems that the locations may be much more varied than just desert environments.
A quick Google of possible Battlefield 3 locations gave me the following quotes:
In Battlefield 3, players step into the role of the elite U.S. Marines where they will experience heart-pounding single player missions and competitive multiplayer actions ranging across diverse locations from around the globe including Paris, Tehran and New York.
Urban Combat – Take the fight to iconic and unexpected places in the USA, Middle East, and Europe including claustrophobic streets, metropolitan downtowns, and open, vehicle-friendly landscapes as you fight your way through the war of tomorrow.
Interesting stuff right there. It would be amazing if Battlefield 3 had a multiplayer map set in New York City; definitely would one-up Crysis 2 by having a destructible environment.
|
Does anyone remember Joint Ops? That had a few 128 player maps, and, when the game wasn't being excruciatingly laggy or buggy, the gameplay was quite amazing, it was a whole different scale. The maps were gigantic, you really felt like just one guy in a massive battle. Granted, they were mostly featureless grasslands and jungles, but it was still cool.
|
Korea already has a Battlefield that supports 100 players per server.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlefield_Online
I was so disappointed when we ended up with BFP4F instead of what Korea got 
I really did hope BF3 would have more than 64 but oh well... Now I just hope it's good. I just spent 6 hours straight playing 1942, that game is a beast and so much more fun than BC2. I love how most of the old maps don't have too many CPs so the fighting is always concentrated on 1 or 2 points. Despite this there is always space to maneuver around big groups of enemies, you never get stuck struggling up a poorly designed choke point.
Please be good BF3. I hope they release some MP footage soon since that's really the only point of Battlefield 
|
64 man games!
Holy crap, fuck you PS3 I'm getting this for PC.
|
On April 24 2011 03:10 Retgery wrote:
64 man games!
Holy crap, fuck you PS3 I'm getting this for PC.
Good luck if your PC isn't advanced.
Btw would an Asus G73 laptop be able to run this at least in low settings with 30 FPS at the bare minimum?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
