BF3 - consoles to have smaller maps (also PC level graphics?)

Found this today and I think its pretty interesting.http://enterbf3.com/viewtopic.php?t=1454&sid=2be3c724c44c388e055505d7eaa15397

"One question relating to whether or not console players would get smaller maps than their PC team-mates. The answer wasyes, console players will get smaller maps in Battlefield 3"

So that kind of sucks for console players but on a note about the graphics apparently the team are striving to have PC quality graphics on the consoles due to their new streaming and pipelining ideas.

"This to was also answered. With DICE's talented development team they have been able to compress the graphics through streaming (which we've been hearing a lot about from GDC 2011) and pipelines. The console will then uncompress the information with about the same quality as the PC. A console has not been seen running the game yet and multiplayer videos of Battlefield 3 have not yet been seen as well"

If this is true then it would be incredible and a new fronteir for console games. But nothing is completely confirmed yet and no videos have been seen to be believed.

I prefer to think of it as consoles having 'cozier' or 'tighter' maps. Seriously, its great for PC gamers that the PC is the lead system for BF3.

Of course consoles will have smaller maps. There will be more players per game on PC servers. If anything more developers should realize that PC and consoles are very different, and optimize gameplay elements for both platforms independently.

I also don't mind smaller maps. The Squad deathmatch maps in BFBC2 were a great size and having a 64 player map with only 24 players would be pointless. But its great news on the graphics front so far for consoles

Well, I assume it will be like in BF2 then, right? if you were 16 players, the game itself would section off parts of the map (shrink it down somewhat) and replace the vehicles for a more ballanced play.

with 32 you would get the medium maps, bigger then BF:BC2 and open up more vehicle types, and terrain

with 64 you would pretty much have the whole map opened up, with a slew of vehicles.

So if we assume it is like BF2, then I doubt Console players will complain. since it will likely be one of the bigger MP games on console in any case :S

I surely hope so, while I AM getting it on PC, I think DICE deserves good sales, so that would count across the board :P

And while my fellow Hermits will make sure the console players know the PC version is the "right" version for months, I think Ill just be happy that it seems that a true BF game comes out, and hope itll be good.

And hope itll sell well enough that EA will take this road with future games, since making for PC and porting to console honestly often seems to yield the best results on all platforms overall :\

I want the PC one, but I don't know if my computer will be able to handle it on good enough settings.

Pretty awesome news for consoles though if they really can get those graphics.

I want the PC one, but I don't know if my computer will be able to handle it on good enough settings.

Pretty awesome news for consoles though if they really can get those graphics.

kerrman

Yeah if Bad Company 2 was any indication, BF3 will require a quad core CPU and a decent DX11 video card to really shine.

There are far less players, so it makes sence to reduce the map size. It would be a game of sniper hide and seek otherwise. PC level graphics on consoles just means one thing: The PC game will be silky smooth.

Less players, less space. Simple logic. If you ever played BF2 you would already know this.

It won't have PC level graphics. BFBC2 had absolutely no anti-aliasing on consoles and still had framerate issues. There's no way they can push out more visual fidelity without comprimising something serious.

[QUOTE="kerrman"]

I want the PC one, but I don't know if my computer will be able to handle it on good enough settings.

Pretty awesome news for consoles though if they really can get those graphics.

demonic_85

Yeah if Bad Company 2 was any indication, BF3 will require a quad core CPU and a decent DX11 video card to really shine.

Here you gohttp://enterbf3.com/battlefield-3-minimum-requirements.php

Seriously, its great for PC gamers that the PC is the lead system for BF3.

CarnageHeart

QFT. I like how DICE are developing this game. They're trying to get as much from the PC version as they can while simultaneously pushing the consoles to their limits and delivering the best experience they can. In the end, you get a PC game which stays true to the PC expectations and comes with all the bells and whistles you'd expect from a good PC game, and a great product on the consoles, one which will simply blow every console gamer away. The real question is, if DICE seems to have managed this why did Crytek screw everything up?

if DICE seems to have managed this why did Crytek screw everything up?

amit_89

because DICE are the kings. Also it was crytek's first try on consoles. But my guess is that Frosbite 2.0 is a very well engineered engine. Better than cryengine 3from what I've seen

[QUOTE="amit_89"]

if DICE seems to have managed this why did Crytek screw everything up?

seanmcloughlin

because DICE are the kings. Also it was crytek's first try on consoles. But my guess is that Frosbite 2.0 is a very well engineered engine. Better than cryengine 3from what I've seen

Its not clear that DICE has managed it. Nobody's even seen the console versions.

BF2 maps were huge enough. The one with the windmills wasmassive to the pointwhere it was kind of boring to play in.

Warhawk had the biggest maps I've ever seen and that was back in 2007. MAG has huge maps too and it could hold upto 256 players. I understand BF3 is pushing more polys than MAG but i dont see why we have to get stuck with 16-24 player maps when warhawk did 32 players piloting Tanks, Jets and humvees with ZERO frame drops.

[QUOTE="amit_89"]

if DICE seems to have managed this why did Crytek screw everything up?

seanmcloughlin

because DICE are the kings. Also it was crytek's first try on consoles. But my guess is that Frosbite 2.0 is a very well engineered engine. Better than cryengine 3from what I've seen

Crysis 2 looks phenomenal on consoles. Crytek didnt screw anything up.

Smaller maps but not small maps.BC2 maps are huge with 24 players this game will be no different.The game will be great,nothing to worry about.

Warhawk had the biggest maps I've ever seen and that was back in 2007. MAG has huge maps too and it could hold upto 256 players. I understand BF3 is pushing more polys than MAG but i dont see why we have to get stuck with 16-24 player maps when warhawk did 32 players piloting Tanks, Jets and humvees with ZERO frame drops.

S0lidSnake

Warhawk's maps were tiny compared to traditionall BF games.

I think that sounds pretty fair to me tbh, Bf started with PC, and should be like that, for the console deffo smaller map, make it more fun, I prob will get the PC version as I have been playing all BF games on PC.... Looking forward to see the first pictures!