More proof consoles are holding back the potential of PC.

[QUOTE="Stalkerfieldsis"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Wow. I have to say that TC is a total idiot. The maps in BF3 are not that small, this whole thread is based upon a false premise. His "proof" is some map made in Paint that has no merit.

He just hates BF3 and needs some false excuses to justify his hate. Why did this thread get this many replies?

Wasdie

What the f*ck else do you want as proof? That's a HELLUVALOT smaller and this is PROOF!

BF3's map is LITERALLY just the distance between three bases on a map wirth 8 spread out bases. It's right there, just because you SAY I have no proof doesn't change that I do.

Wow, you're thick.

You posted the same map that has no merit. It's a paint map, no size comparisons at all.

Just stop, you really look stupid.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]The maps in BF3 are not that smalJebus213

No they aren't, but we've already proven that you too are a single minded fool when it comes to hating on Battlefield and will say whatever illogical crap you can to hate on the game.

The maps aren't as spread out as BF2 and there are plenty that are focused on city fighting with corridors, but the B2K pack and a good chunk of vanilla maps are open enough to allow the diverse gameplay of Battlefield to play out just fine.

The "example" that TC made is in by no way an accurate depiction of anything. To agree with such a foolish comparison that has nothing to do with Battlefield 3 is just proving your igorance.

You can disagree with Battlefield all you want, that's fine, but to spew absolute lies and agree with things that are 100% false, is what is wrong.

[QUOTE="Jebus213"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]The maps in BF3 are not that smalWasdie

No they aren't, but we've already proven that you too are a single minded fool when it comes to hating on Battlefield and will say whatever illogical crap you can to hate on the game.

The maps aren't as spread out as BF2 and there are plenty that are focused on city fighting with corridors, but the B2K pack and a good chunk of vanilla maps are open enough to allow the diverse gameplay of Battlefield to play out just fine.

The "example" that TC made is in by no way an accurate depiction of anything. To agree with such a foolish comparison that has nothing to do with Battlefield 3 is just proving your igorance.

You can disagree with Battlefield all you want, that's fine, but to spew absolute lies and agree with things that are 100% false, is what is wrong.

They are smaller. Having playable area that nobody uses means nothing.Jebus213

True, but that doesn't make them less fun. It only makes them less fun if you're so damn jaded you let yourself not have fun.

I've put 60 hours into those maps and I have had just as much fun with them as I did in BF2. The maps have more diversity and play well with 64 player, at least the bigget ones. Those smaller maps don't, but people still play them with 64 players which doesn't make any sense to me.

The maps have a lot more going on in them as well. The draw distances are larger than in BF2 by quite a bit, so you see a lot more, and everything is far more robust and interactive. The B2K maps are especially interactive and have a lot going on.

If you want large maps, go play WWII Online. There you get to walk for 20 minutes in between the towns in the 300,000 square km map. For the record, I play that game daily.

Look at me, I'm better than everybody else because they like something I don't like and I'm calling them out! Old games were so much better than new games. You kids are all casual trash.Jebus213

That's how we all read these posts Jebus.

[QUOTE="JC_Spot"][QUOTE="Jebus213"] Let me guess your favorite map is operation metro? Am I right? It's not hard to find groups of people in Caspian, Kharg, etc. Jebus213

[QUOTE="Jebus213"][QUOTE="JC_Spot"] To be fair, Metro is the most popular map in the game, including on PC. The amount of Metro only servers is as ridiculous as 64 player conquest on the map. I do like Metro but only for 32 player or less rush. As far as Caspian and Kharg go, I'm not a huge fan of these huge maps to be honest, although I'm not a huge fan of Conquest period, rush is the way to go.lowe0

[QUOTE="lowe0"]

[QUOTE="Jebus213"] DICE's new fanbase right here^ They did a poll on Battlelog asking "What was your first Battlefield game"... 48% said either BC1, 1943, BC2, or BF3... That was around +200,000 votes. New fanbase NAILED!!!Jebus213

So you're better than them by default?

[QUOTE="Jebus213"]They are smaller. Having playable area that nobody uses means nothing.Wasdie

True, but that doesn't make them less fun. It only makes them less fun if you're so damn jaded you let yourself not have fun.

I've put 60 hours into those maps and I have had just as much fun with them as I did in BF2. The maps have more diversity and play well with 64 player, at least the bigget ones. Those smaller maps don't, but people still play them with 64 players which doesn't make any sense to me.

The maps have a lot more going on in them as well. The draw distances are larger than in BF2 by quite a bit, so you see a lot more, and everything is far more robust and interactive. The B2K maps are especially interactive and have a lot going on.

If you want large maps, go play WWII Online. There you get to walk for 20 minutes in between the towns in the 300,000 square km map. For the record, I play that game daily.

[QUOTE="Jebus213"][QUOTE="lowe0"]And? The guy whose first BF game is BF3 paid the same for his copy as a Veteran Level 9 did for theirs. They're just as much a customer as anyone else.

Wasdie

So you're better than them by default?

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="Jebus213"]They are smaller. Having playable area that nobody uses means nothing.Jebus213

True, but that doesn't make them less fun. It only makes them less fun if you're so damn jaded you let yourself not have fun.

I've put 60 hours into those maps and I have had just as much fun with them as I did in BF2. The maps have more diversity and play well with 64 player, at least the bigget ones. Those smaller maps don't, but people still play them with 64 players which doesn't make any sense to me.

The maps have a lot more going on in them as well. The draw distances are larger than in BF2 by quite a bit, so you see a lot more, and everything is far more robust and interactive. The B2K maps are especially interactive and have a lot going on.

If you want large maps, go play WWII Online. There you get to walk for 20 minutes in between the towns in the 300,000 square km map. For the record, I play that game daily.

You wouldn't, so I won't bother trying to explain.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="Stalkerfieldsis"]

What the f*ck else do you want as proof? That's a HELLUVALOT smaller and this is PROOF!

BF3's map is LITERALLY just the distance between three bases on a map wirth 8 spread out bases. It's right there, just because you SAY I have no proof doesn't change that I do.

Jebus213

Wow, you're thick.

You posted the same map that has no merit. It's a paint map, no size comparisons at all.

Just stop, you really look stupid.

This entire discussion seems to be based on a map that doesn't even exist in BF3. Are you guys high or something?

TC, you argument is flawed in so many ways that I'm unsure where to start. Just for the record, I am a PC gamer and have been a PC gamer for about 20 years now.

First off, you could blame just about anyone, why single out consoles as holding the supposed blame?

- Blame PC Gamers for not buying enough shooters. If PC Gamers bought far more copies of the shooters available, DICE/EA would be far more likely to develop PC Exclusive shooters.

- Blame PC owners. Most PC Owners do not own high end rigs. Cards like the 88- and 9800, mobile video cards and build in gpu's are still among the more common GPU's on STEAM. If more PC Gamers upgraded their rigs to high end GPU's DICE would have a bigger PC market to cater to.

- Blame Call of Duty. BF3 was in so many ways EA's attempt to compete with CoD's incredible success. The core of that success lies on the consoles (CoD have sold a lot more on consoles than on the PC), so if you're chasing the CoD market share, you HAVE to focus on the consoles.

- Blame it on the DICE engineers and artists. If BF3 didn?t have such a high graphical standard, so advanced graphical effects, so many physics objects and elements it would have been much easier to make bigger maps without hitting hardware limitations. Blame it on the graphics!

- Blame it on capitalism. Let?s face it, EA/DICE don?t make games to put a smile on your shiny face. They make games to sell for a profit. In their estimation, they would make a bigger profit if they developed their game to work across multiple platforms. Making money > your happiness.

Next your argument, that because BF2 had bigger maps, it must be due to consoles. There are plenty of console games with maps tens of times larger than BF2's largest maps. Also, on the PC, Daggerfall had a MUCH bigger map than Morrowind. Does that mean that PC's got weaker in the in-between years? If not, how is the comparison any less valid than the one you?re trying to make?

At the end of the day, I'm sure console hardware was a factor in how DICE developed their game, but I'm also pretty confident that it was just one of many concerns. A desire to be more like CoD was most likely a big factor, needing to limit scale and scope due to very advanced graphics was another concern, not limiting their potential market among lower end PC's was probably another concern as well (something many of the larger PC exclusive titles try to do).

And if you dont like the changes DICE made, dont like the map size, the run speed, the vehicle handling, the point system... just play ARMA 2-3 and leave BF3 to the people who like their shooters with less realism and more / faster action.

Also, to all the haters crying about the size of BF3 maps. What's the point of having absolutely huge maps when there's virtually nothing going on between each flag? And how can anyone defend fog? It makes long distance engagement null, which is clearly a strategic option that should be there. My reference is 2142 here, the biggest map there was Shuhia Taiba and there's a reason no one played that map. The flags were incredibly far apart and all you had between them was empty space. If that's your definition of fun, then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

BF3 maps are so much fun, there's so much going on, they're not barren empty places with a few scattered flags. Who cares even if they're a bit smaller? I like it that in Gulf of Oman for example some flags are within walking distance while others require driving. Even in vehicle-focused maps, there aren't 64 vehicles so the majority of players will be on foot, forcing people to walk 5 minutes to get to a flag and then having it captured by your team just before you get there is not fun.

I understand some people prefer slower paced gameplay. Play Gulf of Oman or Wake Island 48 players, problem solved. For me though those maps are perfect for 64 players.

This entire discussion seems to be based on a map that doesn't even exist in BF3. Are you guys high or something?nunovlopes

TC, you argument is flawed in so many ways that I'm unsure where to start. Just for the record, I am a PC gamer and have been a PC gamer for about 20 years now.

First off, you could blame just about anyone, why single out consoles as holding the supposed blame?

- Blame PC Gamers for not buying enough shooters. If PC Gamers bought far more copies of the shooters available, DICE/EA would be far more likely to develop PC Exclusive shooters.

- Blame PC owners. Most PC Owners do not own high end rigs. Cards like the 88- and 9800, mobile video cards and build in gpu's are still among the more common GPU's on STEAM. If more PC Gamers upgraded their rigs to high end GPU's DICE would have a bigger PC market to cater to.

- Blame Call of Duty. BF3 was in so many ways EA's attempt to compete with CoD's incredible success. The core of that success lies on the consoles (CoD have sold a lot more on consoles than on the PC), so if you're chasing the CoD market share, you HAVE to focus on the consoles.

- Blame it on the DICE engineers and artists. If BF3 didn?t have such a high graphical standard, so advanced graphical effects, so many physics objects and elements it would have been much easier to make bigger maps without hitting hardware limitations. Blame it on the graphics!

- Blame it on capitalism. Let?s face it, EA/DICE don?t make games to put a smile on your shiny face. They make games to sell for a profit. In their estimation, they would make a bigger profit if they developed their game to work across multiple platforms. Making money > your happiness.

Next your argument, that because BF2 had bigger maps, it must be due to consoles. There are plenty of console games with maps tens of times larger than BF2's largest maps. Also, on the PC, Daggerfall had a MUCH bigger map than Morrowind. Does that mean that PC's got weaker in the in-between years? If not, how is the comparison any less valid than the one you?re trying to make?

At the end of the day, I'm sure console hardware was a factor in how DICE developed their game, but I'm also pretty confident that it was just one of many concerns. A desire to be more like CoD was most likely a big factor, needing to limit scale and scope due to very advanced graphics was another concern, not limiting their potential market among lower end PC's was probably another concern as well (something many of the larger PC exclusive titles try to do).

And if you dont like the changes DICE made, dont like the map size, the run speed, the vehicle handling, the point system... just play ARMA 2-3 and leave BF3 to the people who like their shooters with less realism and more / faster action.

Mazoch

+1

[QUOTE="nunovlopes"]This entire discussion seems to be based on a map that doesn't even exist in BF3. Are you guys high or something?Jebus213

Ok then post them, and let's discuss, presenting the picture of a map THAT DOES NOT APPEAR IN BF3 and using that as proof that BF3 maps are small is dumb beyond belief.

[QUOTE="lowe0"]

[QUOTE="Jebus213"] DICE's new fanbase right here^ They did a poll on Battlelog asking "What was your first Battlefield game"... 48% said either BC1, 1943, BC2, or BF3... That was around +200,000 votes. New fanbase NAILED!!!Jebus213

Also, to all the haters crying about the size of BF3 maps. What's the point of having absolutely huge maps when there's virtually nothing going on between each flag? And how can anyone defend fog? It makes long distance engagement null, which is clearly a strategic option that should be there. My reference is 2142 here, the biggest map there was Shuhia Taiba and there's a reason no one played that map. The flags were incredibly far apart and all you had between them was empty space. If that's your definition of fun, then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

BF3 maps are so much fun, there's so much going on, they're not barren empty places with a few scattered flags. Who cares even if they're a bit smaller? I like it that in Gulf of Oman for example some flags are within walking distance while others require driving. Even in vehicle-focused maps, there aren't 64 vehicles so the majority of players will be on foot, forcing people to walk 5 minutes to get to a flag and then having it captured by your team just before you get there is not fun.

I understand some people prefer slower paced gameplay. Play Gulf of Oman or Wake Island 48 players, problem solved. For me though those maps are perfect for 64 players.

nunovlopes

[QUOTE="Jebus213"][QUOTE="lowe0"]And? The guy whose first BF game is BF3 paid the same for his copy as a Veteran Level 9 did for theirs. They're just as much a customer as anyone else.lowe0

[QUOTE="Jebus213"][QUOTE="nunovlopes"]This entire discussion seems to be based on a map that doesn't even exist in BF3. Are you guys high or something?nunovlopes

Ok then post them, and let's discuss, presenting the picture of a map THAT DOES NOT APPEAR IN BF3 and using that as proof that BF3 maps are small is dumb beyond belief.

Wow. I have to say that TC is a total idiot. The maps in BF3 are not that small, this whole thread is based upon a false premise. His "proof" is some map made in Paint that has no merit.

He just hates BF3 and needs some false excuses to justify his hate. Why did this thread get this many replies?

Wasdie

Its called Zatar Wetlands you f*cking moron, it was in BF2!!! I circled the area in paint, that's it, look up the Zatar Wetlands map, google is your friend dumbass. So, once again, how is my argument AT ALL false?

[QUOTE="JC_Spot"][QUOTE="lowe0"]Then why did you bring it up in the first place?Jebus213

Also, to all the haters crying about the size of BF3 maps. What's the point of having absolutely huge maps when there's virtually nothing going on between each flag? And how can anyone defend fog? It makes long distance engagement null, which is clearly a strategic option that should be there. My reference is 2142 here, the biggest map there was Shuhia Taiba and there's a reason no one played that map. The flags were incredibly far apart and all you had between them was empty space. If that's your definition of fun, then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

BF3 maps are so much fun, there's so much going on, they're not barren empty places with a few scattered flags. Who cares even if they're a bit smaller? I like it that in Gulf of Oman for example some flags are within walking distance while others require driving. Even in vehicle-focused maps, there aren't 64 vehicles so the majority of players will be on foot, forcing people to walk 5 minutes to get to a flag and then having it captured by your team just before you get there is not fun.

I understand some people prefer slower paced gameplay. Play Gulf of Oman or Wake Island 48 players, problem solved. For me though those maps are perfect for 64 players.

nunovlopes

So? You're argument is you can't make a huge map without everything being empty. You can make...for example...a large city map with lots of buildings, cover and obstacle between spread out flags.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Wow. I have to say that TC is a total idiot. The maps in BF3 are not that small, this whole thread is based upon a false premise. His "proof" is some map made in Paint that has no merit.

He just hates BF3 and needs some false excuses to justify his hate. Why did this thread get this many replies?

Stalkerfieldsis

Its called Zatar Wetlands you f*cking moron, it was in BF2!!! I circled the area in paint, that's it, look up the Zatar Wetlands map, google is your friend dumbass. So, once again, how is my argument AT ALL false?

[QUOTE="Jebus213"][QUOTE="JC_Spot"] Because he thinks DICE should screen all customers for BF veteran status before they are allowed to purchase the game.JC_Spot

No, screening players so that veterans can only play, THAT would do what you're speaking of, THAT would be stupid. What he's saying is to discriminate againsst morons, if you're a new PC gamer and what you think is a good game is a "highly interactive and challenging experience that build a upon its predecessors if it has any" then more power to you. If you're a new PC gamer who's idea of a great game is a linear, low interactivity "press 'X' to win" expereince like Uncharted, than you're not bad because you're new, you are bad because you are a simple-minded moron.

[QUOTE="nunovlopes"]

Also, to all the haters crying about the size of BF3 maps. What's the point of having absolutely huge maps when there's virtually nothing going on between each flag? And how can anyone defend fog? It makes long distance engagement null, which is clearly a strategic option that should be there. My reference is 2142 here, the biggest map there was Shuhia Taiba and there's a reason no one played that map. The flags were incredibly far apart and all you had between them was empty space. If that's your definition of fun, then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

BF3 maps are so much fun, there's so much going on, they're not barren empty places with a few scattered flags. Who cares even if they're a bit smaller? I like it that in Gulf of Oman for example some flags are within walking distance while others require driving. Even in vehicle-focused maps, there aren't 64 vehicles so the majority of players will be on foot, forcing people to walk 5 minutes to get to a flag and then having it captured by your team just before you get there is not fun.

I understand some people prefer slower paced gameplay. Play Gulf of Oman or Wake Island 48 players, problem solved. For me though those maps are perfect for 64 players.

Jebus213

I was actually referring to Titan mode. My point still stands and applies to other huge maps filled with a lot of nothing and a few scattered flags. Not what most people consider fun.

[QUOTE="nunovlopes"]

[QUOTE="Jebus213"] TC's pic isn't anywhere near accurate of course. They made maps with this huge playable area but for some reason decided cluster them in the middle...Jebus213

Ok then post them, and let's discuss, presenting the picture of a map THAT DOES NOT APPEAR IN BF3 and using that as proof that BF3 maps are small is dumb beyond belief.

Caspian Border and Noshahr Canals, yes, they're not very big. I like them though. But Kharg Island and Firestorm are big maps. Big enough.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Wow. I have to say that TC is a total idiot. The maps in BF3 are not that small, this whole thread is based upon a false premise. His "proof" is some map made in Paint that has no merit.

He just hates BF3 and needs some false excuses to justify his hate. Why did this thread get this many replies?

Stalkerfieldsis

Its called Zatar Wetlands you f*cking moron, it was in BF2!!! I circled the area in paint, that's it, look up the Zatar Wetlands map, google is your friend dumbass. So, once again, how is my argument AT ALL false?

That map doesn't appear in BF3 so what's your point?

[QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

Wouldn't it be easy to prove or disprove the TC's premise by comparing the Karkand map from both Battlefield games?

Stalkerfieldsis

Those were shrunk down...considerably, in fact it would be more pathetic because Strike at Karkand is much smaller than Zatar wetlands, but it was still shrunk down because of consoles, heres another demonstration.

I would like to see Wasdie address this. The 64player map in BF3 looks very similar to the 16player map in BF2. With an extra 2 spawn points and the American spawn point moved up. Were there complaints about the map being too big??? To me that map should have been made bigger at least. Not the same size, but bigger. Fighting around the train wreck was pretty intense and then that thrill when you actually crossed the bridge and were holding like a little beachhead. Now the map isn't really that much different than the others.

[QUOTE="JC_Spot"][QUOTE="Jebus213"] I would have been very happy if they really did do that. There should have been a quiz to determine whether you liked mindless "insta-action" games or "press X to win".Stalkerfieldsis

No, screening players so that veterans can only play, THAT would do what you're speaking of, THAT would be stupid. What he's saying is to discriminate againsst morons, if you're a new PC gamer and what you think is a good game is a "highly interactive and challenging experience that build a upon its predecessors if it has any" then more power to you. If you're a new PC gamer who's idea of a great game is a linear, low interactivity "press 'X' to win" expereince like Uncharted, than you're not bad because you're new, you are bad because you are a simple-minded moron.

[QUOTE="nunovlopes"]

Also, to all the haters crying about the size of BF3 maps. What's the point of having absolutely huge maps when there's virtually nothing going on between each flag? And how can anyone defend fog? It makes long distance engagement null, which is clearly a strategic option that should be there. My reference is 2142 here, the biggest map there was Shuhia Taiba and there's a reason no one played that map. The flags were incredibly far apart and all you had between them was empty space. If that's your definition of fun, then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

BF3 maps are so much fun, there's so much going on, they're not barren empty places with a few scattered flags. Who cares even if they're a bit smaller? I like it that in Gulf of Oman for example some flags are within walking distance while others require driving. Even in vehicle-focused maps, there aren't 64 vehicles so the majority of players will be on foot, forcing people to walk 5 minutes to get to a flag and then having it captured by your team just before you get there is not fun.

I understand some people prefer slower paced gameplay. Play Gulf of Oman or Wake Island 48 players, problem solved. For me though those maps are perfect for 64 players.

Stalkerfieldsis

So? You're argument is you can't make a huge map without everything being empty. You can make...for example...a large city map with lots of buildings, cover and obstacle between spread out flags.

If the maps are too big, people will naturally gravitate towards the flags (it's an objective based game after all), leaving you with huge space filled with lots of stuff but where nothing is happening. What's the point of cover if there's no one there? Not fun.

Seriously, have you played Arma 2? That's what's it feels like. A huge map, too bad nothing is happening on 99% of it. Not ditching on the game, it's great to lots of people and I appreciate what it tries to do, just not for me.

menes777

Is this what Strike at Karkand BF2 16-player version looks like? How is this similar to the BF3 64-player map?

I do not want to play games at a desk with a keyboard and mouse; I want to play games on my La-Z-Boy, while watching on my 60in LED TV, and running the sound through my Harmon-Kardon receiver. Sorry.StormyJoe

Too bad that argument is useless because you can do all of that on PC.