Battlefiled 3: looks like PC users win

Ok so I read today that the PC version will have 64 players, while the console crowd will still be limited to 24 players. I'm not saying this is confirmed but i'm inclined to believe it, judging by history.

WTF? I just want to know why this is? We know the PS3 can handle huge numbers of players (MAG, Resistance 2) So why are we limited to such a small number for the majority of multi-plat games?

i just dont understand it - I've heard that Net code is harder for consoles but surely they could do it if they put their minds to it. It seems unfair that console gamers will pay more for an inferior edperience. I have a theory that that is competely hypothetical so don't pipe up, but is this the fault of the 360?

If the PC can do it and the PS3 can do it, what other edplaination is there? Infact I don't know of any games for the 360 that can support 50 + players?

Battlefiled maps are usually huge and I don't want to be playing in a ghost town!

i'm not a fanboy, I have both consoles and play both, and love bad company 2 for the 360 but can't help but think that it might be holding everyone back?

thoughts?

Did anyone expect otherwise

-MAG can have 256 players because the game doesn't generate the entire map, not to mention it's nothing special graphically.

-Frontlines for the 360 supports 50 players.

-Battlefield 3 seems to be an amazing looking game, you can't just expect 64 players on 5 year old hardware.

-You'll be fine with 24 players, that was the console-limit for BC2 wasn't it?

Battlefield 2 was a PC only game. It's only right to give the people that have supported it something extra.Blacklight2

this right here.

That's what we've been saying all along, 360 holds back all games. MAG could do it even more than Battlefield.
Blame the piece of dinky toy for gimping your game on the PS3.

Probably a made up story by a pc fanboy. Console users do it too. At least my ps3 wasn't $2000. Just saying :P.

Wow...we just had a thread on this...

Don't compare Resistance and MAG to Battlefield, both fail in comparison with graphics, tech and even gameplay for that matter.

That's what we've been saying all along, 360 holds back all games. MAG could do it even more than Battlefield.
Blame the piece of dinky toy for gimping your game on the PS3.

Locutus_Picard

Probably a made up story by a pc fanboy. Console users do it too. At least my ps3 wasn't $2000. Just saying :P.

dunl12496

most PC's aren't $2000 either if you decided to build it yourself. but consolites don't really know anything about that do they?

-You'll be fine with 24 players, that was the console-limit for BC2 wasn't it?

tagyhag

Wow...we just had a thread on this...

Don't compare Resistance and MAG to Battlefield, both fail in comparison with graphics, tech and even gameplay for that matter.

mitu123

This.

Also 50 players have been done on the 360, but like the PS3, it won't be able to handle what DICE is doing with BF3.

It "should" (only cause it hasn't been released yet) be an amazing game no matter what system you play it on.

[QUOTE="slinkysi"]

It seems unfair that console gamers will pay more for an inferior edperience.

coreybg

:lol:

i really don't know why people want 64players on consoles when the maps won't be big enough with support them and keep it balanced. BFBC2 was great and very well balanced on consoles and it had 32 players pc maps can handle 64 player AND keep it balanced and fun. Resistance 2 and MAG proved me that large number of players by itself doesn't mean squat if you don't balance the game out

That's what we've been saying all along, 360 holds back all games. MAG could do it even more than Battlefield.
Blame the piece of dinky toy for gimping your game on the PS3.

Locutus_Picard

I will buy BF3 once it doesn't go to glitch land like in BFBC2.

BF2 on the PC had small, medium, and large versions of each map. Most people played on the large version (64 players). I think the consoles are going to get the small and medium versions of the maps. This will mean infantry only maps and limited vehicle maps. It's basically going to play like Bad Company 2. The PC users will get the 64 player maps as well which give them Jets and a much wider range and number of vehicles. This is battlefield at it's finest. MAG did 256 players with at least 64 in any given area at one time. They didn't render the whole map all the time, but transitions into new areas were seamless. The barracks line was all rendered for the players in that area (4 barracks with 32 defenders against 32 attackers plus 2 APCs and air/mortar strikes). That's a lot more going on in a smaller area than Bad Company ever dreamed of. The graphics were not as good, but there was every bit as much lag producing entities as any other game (grenades, rockets, vehicles, airstrikes, etc). Zipper spent a large effort in networking code and strategies, and it paid off. I think they could pull off Battlefield 3 with 64 players on the PS3. DICE does not have a good history with networking on consoles. Mics on PS3 have been shoddy at best. In Bad Company and 1943, the mics rarely work if at all. Bad Co 2 was the first game they worked in regularly, but then it lags like crazy with 20 people in the room plus vehicles.-ArchAngeL-777-

Another extra problem with B3 is the promised even better destruction of Frostbite 2.0. That alone should destroy anything in MAG and make it a lot more stressful.

The mics sucked even on PC it was better to use third party.

[QUOTE="-ArchAngeL-777-"]BF2 on the PC had small, medium, and large versions of each map. Most people played on the large version (64 players). I think the consoles are going to get the small and medium versions of the maps. This will mean infantry only maps and limited vehicle maps. It's basically going to play like Bad Company 2. The PC users will get the 64 player maps as well which give them Jets and a much wider range and number of vehicles. This is battlefield at it's finest. MAG did 256 players with at least 64 in any given area at one time. They didn't render the whole map all the time, but transitions into new areas were seamless. The barracks line was all rendered for the players in that area (4 barracks with 32 defenders against 32 attackers plus 2 APCs and air/mortar strikes). That's a lot more going on in a smaller area than Bad Company ever dreamed of. The graphics were not as good, but there was every bit as much lag producing entities as any other game (grenades, rockets, vehicles, airstrikes, etc). Zipper spent a large effort in networking code and strategies, and it paid off. I think they could pull off Battlefield 3 with 64 players on the PS3. DICE does not have a good history with networking on consoles. Mics on PS3 have been shoddy at best. In Bad Company and 1943, the mics rarely work if at all. Bad Co 2 was the first game they worked in regularly, but then it lags like crazy with 20 people in the room plus vehicles.glez13

Another extra problem with B3 is the promised even better destruction of Frostbite 2.0. That alone should destroy anything in MAG and make it a lot more stressful.

The mics sucked even on PC it was better to use third party.

I think they could pull off Battlefield 3 with 64 players on the PS3. -ArchAngeL-777-

[QUOTE="dunl12496"]

Probably a made up story by a pc fanboy. Console users do it too. At least my ps3 wasn't $2000. Just saying :P.

Crazyguy105

most PC's aren't $2000 either if you decided to build it yourself. but consolites don't really know anything about that do they?

Am I the only one who's happy with this as a console user? mrmusicman247

As long as there are jets in the console versions, I'll be happy too.

[QUOTE="coreybg"]

[QUOTE="slinkysi"]

It seems unfair that console gamers will pay more for an inferior edperience.

Locutus_Picard

:lol:

Probably a made up story by a pc fanboy. Console users do it too. At least my ps3 wasn't $2000. Just saying :P.

dunl12496

its fact not fiction.. go check like anywhere worthy of being a reputable news source.. heck mcvuk probably has something on this..

[QUOTE="Crazyguy105"]

[QUOTE="dunl12496"]

Probably a made up story by a pc fanboy. Console users do it too. At least my ps3 wasn't $2000. Just saying :P.

lowe0

most PC's aren't $2000 either if you decided to build it yourself. but consolites don't really know anything about that do they?

[QUOTE="-ArchAngeL-777-"]I think they could pull off Battlefield 3 with 64 players on the PS3. mitu123

This. You only get one 64 player area rendered at a time so basically, MAG is mostly a BF2 with better graphics and less vehicles. People just hear the 256 number and get to the conclusion that 256>64, but it is the exact same thing.

Probably a made up story by a pc fanboy. Console users do it too. At least my ps3 wasn't $2000. Just saying :P.

dunl12496

[QUOTE="dunl12496"]

Probably a made up story by a pc fanboy. Console users do it too. At least my ps3 wasn't $2000. Just saying :P.

Kokuro_Kun

+1

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="-ArchAngeL-777-"]I think they could pull off Battlefield 3 with 64 players on the PS3. glez13

This. You only get one 64 player area rendered at a time so basically, MAG is mostly a BF2 with better graphics and less vehicles. People just hear the 256 number and get to the conclusion that 256>64, but it is the exact same thing.

[QUOTE="Blacklight2"]Battlefield 2 was a PC only game. It's only right to give the people that have supported it something extra.Crazyguy105

this right here.

So....console gamers get the game for free?

Of course, it couldn't have anything to do with consoles being weak and outdated.

[QUOTE="lowe0"][QUOTE="Crazyguy105"]

most PC's aren't $2000 either if you decided to build it yourself. but consolites don't really know anything about that do they?

mitu123

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="lowe0"] How so? I'm a consolite, and I've been building PCs since the 90s.lowe0

[QUOTE="Crazyguy105"]

[QUOTE="dunl12496"]

Probably a made up story by a pc fanboy. Console users do it too. At least my ps3 wasn't $2000. Just saying :P.

lowe0

most PC's aren't $2000 either if you decided to build it yourself. but consolites don't really know anything about that do they?

Most consoles gamers (not all) erroneously believe that PC gaming is super expensive when in reality it isn't. Yes, it might be a little more expensive than console gaming (if you want to keep up with newer games) but it certainly doesn't cost thousands of dollars unless you decide to needlessly spend that much.

Edit: typo galore

[QUOTE="lowe0"][QUOTE="Crazyguy105"]

most PC's aren't $2000 either if you decided to build it yourself. but consolites don't really know anything about that do they?

You'd be a liar if you think that it takes anywhere near $2000 USD for a good gaming PC.

Most consoles gamers (not all) erroneously believes that PC gaming is super expensive when in reality it isn't. Yes, it might be a little more expensive than console gaming (if you want to keep up with newer games) but it certainly does cost thousands of dollars unless you decide to needlessly spend that much.

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="lowe0"] How so? I'm a consolite, and I've been building PCs since the 90s.lowe0

But that is why I asked you in some other thread if where actually a PC gamer in the past. A consolite is a console only fanboy that in some extreme cases would probably have never played a PC game properly as in completely finishing a game. What he said is correct to an extent a true consolite doesn't know what he is talking about regarding PC's.

Like I said before you are not really a consolite.

[QUOTE="Crazyguy105"]

[QUOTE="Blacklight2"]Battlefield 2 was a PC only game. It's only right to give the people that have supported it something extra.Wii4Fun

this right here.

So....console gamers get the game for free?

no you see your what we call well i cant say it without getting banhammered or suspended at the minimum so i wont give you a label..

The more players a game has does not make it better. Take COD2 on PC..Spawn,die,spawn die,2million grenades,die,spawn,die.2million grenades.8vs8 is fine with me. Even 10vs10...anything over that gets quite annoying.

[QUOTE="lowe0"][QUOTE="Crazyguy105"]

most PC's aren't $2000 either if you decided to build it yourself. but consolites don't really know anything about that do they?

Tezcatlipoca666

Most consoles gamers (not all) erroneously believe that PC gaming is super expensive when in reality it isn't. Yes, it might be a little more expensive than console gaming (if you want to keep up with newer games) but it certainly does cost thousands of dollars unless you decide to needlessly spend that much.

[QUOTE="lowe0"][QUOTE="mitu123"] Where do you buy your parts? I've never had a PC close to that price yet it maxes out most games. Anything above a 1000 for that matter is unbelievable, my custom PC is close to 800 bucks.

glez13

But that is why I asked you in some other thread if where actually a PC gamer in the past. A consolite is a console only fanboy that in some extreme cases would probably have never played a PC game properly as in completely finishing a game. What he said is correct to an extent a true consolite doesn't know what he is talking about regarding PC's.

Like I said before you are not really a consolite.

consolites know nothing of the pc world.. their involvement with a pc goes as far as facebook and their overpriced i-products they bought from greedy palms proprietary apple.

personnaly i think apple should just quit their "novel and revolutionary' products get replaced so fast it hurts.. when was the last time anyone talked about the next line of imac's or ipods? exactly..

[QUOTE="Wii4Fun"]

[QUOTE="Crazyguy105"]

this right here.

ionusX

So....console gamers get the game for free?

no you see your what we call well i cant say it without getting banhammered or suspended at the minimum so i wont give you a label..

Please calm down and use proper punctuations. I didn't understand that.

Probably a made up story by a pc fanboy. Console users do it too. At least my ps3 wasn't $2000. Just saying :P.

dunl12496

The more players a game has does not make it better. Take COD2 on PC..Spawn,die,spawn die,2million grenades,die,spawn,die.2million grenades.8vs8 is fine with me. Even 10vs10...anything over that gets quite annoying.

VanDammFan

That's true only if it applies for all in a kinda equal way. But when it's just a limited group falling into it for the most part I put it into the same category of "camper", "he's hacking" and "lag".