Battlefield 3 Unveiling at GDC 2011

[QUOTE="mitu123"][QUOTE="Harisemo"]

not interested if its like BF2. want moar BFBC

Sandvichman

[QUOTE="badtaker"]

[QUOTE="_Matt_"]

doubt it. Name one console game with 64 players online in a single match where there are multiple jets flying in the sky, many people flying and manning helicopters, driving jetskis, jeeps, tanks. Console hardware just isnt up to it.

Infinite_Access

console part was a joke

my point was If BF3 will have the scale of BF2 then why making BF3 there are stillmanypeople playing BF 2

Frontlines: Fuels of War. No one plays it anymore but it could do it I believe. Warhawk on PS3 (launch title)

MAG has 264 spaced out on pretty large maps.. ground vehicles. AI controlled Air vehicles.

It could happen.. just keep the graphics a little bit down.. and itll be fine.

Warhawk is not a launch title, came out in 2007, PS3 was in 2006, and had 32 players.

Reistance 2 had 60 players.

MAG is 256.

It can happen, but there's some changes to be made, otherwise I agree with you.

Console gamers are not worthy of the same content that the PC users get.

Remmib

This thread is full of elitests. 64 players can be done on consoles.. ps3 has proven this.. (with a launch game no doubt Warhawk)

Console gamers should get everything PC gamers get... I don't care how "worthy" you think you are.

My 60 bucks is worth the same as yours.

(((Ofcourse the graphics can be dumbed down a bit but everyone should get the same content)))

Infinite_Access

BF2 was released in 2005. There have been three console Battlefields since. None of them with the features and functionality you claim consoles can easily pull off. If they finally do with BF3 I'd be enormously surprised.

I will shut up for now about consoles dumbing down the BF3 pc experience, as we havn't seen anything about it yet. However, If Battlefield 3 ends up with a single game player cap less than 64, consoles will be to blame

[QUOTE="Infinite_Access"]

This thread is full of elitests. 64 players can be done on consoles.. ps3 has proven this.. (with a launch game no doubt Warhawk)

Console gamers should get everything PC gamers get... I don't care how "worthy" you think you are.

My 60 bucks is worth the same as yours.

(((Ofcourse the graphics can be dumbed down a bit but everyone should get the same content)))

McStrongfast

BF2 was released in 2005. There have been three console Battlefields since. None of them with the features and functionality you claim consoles can easily pull off. If they finally do with BF3 I'd be enormously surprised.

[QUOTE="Infinite_Access"]

This thread is full of elitests. 64 players can be done on consoles.. ps3 has proven this.. (with a launch game no doubt Warhawk)

Console gamers should get everything PC gamers get... I don't care how "worthy" you think you are.

My 60 bucks is worth the same as yours.

(((Ofcourse the graphics can be dumbed down a bit but everyone should get the same content)))

Remmib

Howaboutno.

Console gamers are to blame for the dumbing down of almost every single franchise I have ever loved, due to devs having to cater to the lowest common IQ denominator.

Console gamers are not worthy of the same content that the PC users get.

I think that 64 players at 20 fps in consoles can be fine, as usual.

[QUOTE="poorfamz"]

2011 Battle of the 3

-Killzone 3

-Modern Warfare 3

-Battlefield 3

-Uncharted 3

-Gears of War 3

-Resistance 3

Fusiondonut

To bad Hardcore Battlefield fans don't care about those **** console centric games, most of them even never heard of them. They just want an epic BF experience just like BF2 and 2142. But that's to much asked in todays market with crap ports, linear crap games an console limitations.

I'll take Uncharted 2, MGS4, and Mario Galaxy 2 over any of your precious pc games that have come out over the last 10 years.

I'll take Uncharted 2, MGS4, and Mario Galaxy 2 over any of your precious pc games that have come out over the last 10 years.

RawDeal_basic

I bought MGS 4 and Uncharted 2. I started both, but was unable to finish any of them. The plot is great, but I was't appealed by the gameplay mechanics.

Demize99, also known as the lead guy in charge of the game, has said several times that they could put more then 32 players on the console versions.Sandvichman

Then why didn't they? In my experience playing Bad Company 2 on PS3 and PC, I find the action much more focused and tight on PC - the extra eight really goes a long way towards ramping up the action for everyone. It's a noticeable improvement going from console to PC.

[QUOTE="Sandvichman"] Demize99, also known as the lead guy in charge of the game, has said several times that they could put more then 32 players on the console versions.psn8214

Then why didn't they? In my experience playing Bad Company 2 on PS3 and PC, I find the action much more focused and tight on PC - the extra eight really goes a long way towards ramping up the action for everyone. It's a noticeable improvement going from console to PC.

Finally the TRUE sequel to BF2.

BF3 is going to own souls..

Port valdez is already a cluster with 24, let alone 32, you dont want 3 times that many players. Its a design choice. I mean, imagine trying to play rush with 64. The maps were never designed to have more then 32, it would just be too many. Sandvichman

Oh, I know that. I was referring to the lack of 32 on consoles. I think anything more than 32 players on ANY of the Bad Company 2 maps would be a major cluster, you're absolutely right, especially playing Rush and Vietnam.

[QUOTE="poorfamz"]

2011 Battle of the 3

-Killzone 3

-Modern Warfare 3

-Battlefield 3

-Uncharted 3

-Gears of War 3

-Resistance 3

Fusiondonut

To bad Hardcore Battlefield fans don't care about those **** console centric games, most of them even never heard of them. They just want an epic BF experience just like BF2 and 2142. But that's to much asked in todays market with crap ports, linear crap games an console limitations.

[QUOTE="psn8214"]

[QUOTE="Sandvichman"] Demize99, also known as the lead guy in charge of the game, has said several times that they could put more then 32 players on the console versions.Sandvichman

Then why didn't they? In my experience playing Bad Company 2 on PS3 and PC, I find the action much more focused and tight on PC - the extra eight really goes a long way towards ramping up the action for everyone. It's a noticeable improvement going from console to PC.

i didn't like to play on 64 player servers even in BF2. it was too much.

[QUOTE="Sandvichman"][QUOTE="psn8214"]

Then why didn't they? In my experience playing Bad Company 2 on PS3 and PC, I find the action much more focused and tight on PC - the extra eight really goes a long way towards ramping up the action for everyone. It's a noticeable improvement going from console to PC.

groowagon

i didn't like to play on 64 player servers even in BF2. it was too much.

really? I find so long as the maps are large and well designed, its a brilliant experience to be in 64 player matches

[QUOTE="Fusiondonut"]

[QUOTE="poorfamz"]

2011 Battle of the 3

-Killzone 3

-Modern Warfare 3

-Battlefield 3

-Uncharted 3

-Gears of War 3

-Resistance 3

RawDeal_basic

To bad Hardcore Battlefield fans don't care about those **** console centric games, most of them even never heard of them. They just want an epic BF experience just like BF2 and 2142. But that's to much asked in todays market with crap ports, linear crap games an console limitations.

I'll take Uncharted 2, MGS4, and Mario Galaxy 2 over any of your precious pc games that have come out over the last 10 years.

[QUOTE="McStrongfast"]

[QUOTE="Infinite_Access"]

This thread is full of elitests. 64 players can be done on consoles.. ps3 has proven this.. (with a launch game no doubt Warhawk)

Console gamers should get everything PC gamers get... I don't care how "worthy" you think you are.

My 60 bucks is worth the same as yours.

(((Ofcourse the graphics can be dumbed down a bit but everyone should get the same content)))

Sandvichman

BF2 was released in 2005. There have been three console Battlefields since. None of them with the features and functionality you claim consoles can easily pull off. If they finally do with BF3 I'd be enormously surprised.

I have him saying they're bandwidth capped on consoles.

For Battlefield it's bandwidth; we are bandwidth capped on the consoles. For PC, I'd like to get back to big scale 64 player.Alan Kertz

Nobody would want 64 players on the small, narrow BC2 Rush maps. That's why you accommodate for the higher player count by making the maps larger and more open.

As I was saying, if BF2 could be done on consoles then why hasn't it been? Third time wasn't the charm.

[QUOTE="Remmib"]

[QUOTE="Infinite_Access"]

This thread is full of elitests. 64 players can be done on consoles.. ps3 has proven this.. (with a launch game no doubt Warhawk)

Console gamers should get everything PC gamers get... I don't care how "worthy" you think you are.

My 60 bucks is worth the same as yours.

(((Ofcourse the graphics can be dumbed down a bit but everyone should get the same content)))

Sandvichman

Howaboutno.

Console gamers are to blame for the dumbing down of almost every single franchise I have ever loved, due to devs having to cater to the lowest common IQ denominator.

Console gamers are not worthy of the same content that the PC users get.

Hail

[spoiler] It's a joke [/spoiler]

Yet it's neither funny or accurate.

Yet it's neither funny or accurate.

deangallop

[QUOTE="deangallop"]

Yet it's neither funny or accurate.

Remmib

You keep thinking that ;)

None of the points are true other than auto-aim (which isnt really a big deal), so it fails as an insult.

and it fails as a joke because it's not funny.

Therefor it's neither funny or accurate.