More proof consoles are holding back the potential of PC.

[QUOTE="menes777"]

nunovlopes

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

Add in 2 more spawn points, move up the US spawnpoint and it's exactly identical. The map has the same general dimensions and it ends at the trainwreck. How do you think it's different?

[QUOTE="Jebus213"][QUOTE="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.

nunovlopes

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.

Those two maps are linear though, a straight corridor for the most part, caspian border is the only large map with any type of non-linearity to it, but its still small.

[QUOTE="menes777"]

nunovlopes

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

This is a better and more accurate comparison.

[QUOTE="nunovlopes"]

[QUOTE="menes777"]

menes777

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

Add in 2 more spawn points, move up the US spawnpoint and it's exactly identical. The map has the same general dimensions and it ends at the trainwreck. How do you think it's different?

I don't know what maps are you playing but the pic above has 3 flags, the PC 64-player version of Strike at Karkand has 7 flags. I don't see the similarity...

[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?

your such a mature human being.

Your another spoiled brat/basement dweller with a self entiled im better than you attitude please do us all a favour and stop whining about a point that 99.9% of normal human beings actually dont give a single **** about.

[QUOTE="nunovlopes"]

[QUOTE="Jebus213"] Caspian Border, Kharg Island, Firestorm, and Noshahr Canals. They are small... Stalkerfieldsis

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.

Those two maps are linear though, a straight corridor for the most part, caspian border is the only large map with any type of non-linearity to it, but its still small.

Exactly Strike at Karkand BF3 is also pretty linear now. There is one alternate spawnpoint (fountain) but it's not really the same as having the spawnpoint up on the hill.

[QUOTE="nunovlopes"]

[QUOTE="Jebus213"] Caspian Border, Kharg Island, Firestorm, and Noshahr Canals. They are small... Stalkerfieldsis

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.

Those two maps are linear though, a straight corridor for the most part, caspian border is the only large map with any type of non-linearity to it, but its still small.

Kharg Island and Operation Firestorm are not linear.

[QUOTE="nunovlopes"]

[QUOTE="menes777"]

Stalkerfieldsis

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

This is a better and more accurate comparison.

That pic has 8 flags, BF3 version has 7, oh noes the map is unplayable!

[QUOTE="menes777"]

[QUOTE="nunovlopes"]

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

nunovlopes

Add in 2 more spawn points, move up the US spawnpoint and it's exactly identical. The map has the same general dimensions and it ends at the trainwreck. How do you think it's different?

I don't know what maps are you playing but the pic above has 3 flags, the PC 64-player version of Strike at Karkand has 7 flags. I don't see the similarity...

Can you show evidence of this? Also it's not just about the number of spawn points. The map could have 20 spawnpoints, but it's the shape of the overall battlefield that defines the strategy. If it's a tunnel shape, guess what everyone is forced to do?

[QUOTE="nunovlopes"]

[QUOTE="menes777"]

menes777

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

Add in 2 more spawn points, move up the US spawnpoint and it's exactly identical. The map has the same general dimensions and it ends at the trainwreck. How do you think it's different?

Ends at the trainwreck?!?! WTH are you on to? What about the F and G flags! You do know there's Conquest and Conquest Large right?

Oh my god, really?! Well fvck, I better go get a gaming pc! That'll show the industry!

[QUOTE="Stalkerfieldsis"]

[QUOTE="nunovlopes"]

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

nunovlopes

This is a better and more accurate comparison.

That pic has 8 flags, BF3 version has 7, oh noes the map is unplayable!

Again back this up with evidence? Or can you?

Because IGN says 5, (in case you aren't very good with math, 3 in the 16 player Bf2 + the 2 that I stated were added).

http://www.ign.com/wikis/battlefield-3/Strike_at_Karkand

I game on a PC and I don't care.

[QUOTE="menes777"]

[QUOTE="nunovlopes"]

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

nunovlopes

Add in 2 more spawn points, move up the US spawnpoint and it's exactly identical. The map has the same general dimensions and it ends at the trainwreck. How do you think it's different?

Ends at the trainwreck?!?! WTH are you on to? What about the F and G flags! You do know there's Conquest and Conquest Large right?

So show me this BF3 map that's the same size as the BF2 map. Should be easy.

Conquest has 3 spawn points (exactly matching the BF2 16 player map).

Conquest large has 5 spawn points (exactly matching the BF2 16 player map in size, but adding 2 more spawn points).

And since you can't seem to actually argue, the argument isn't that BF3 is unplayable, it's that BF2 was bigger. Reading comprehension is really a lost art these days.

[QUOTE="nunovlopes"]

[QUOTE="Stalkerfieldsis"]

This is a better and more accurate comparison.

menes777

That pic has 8 flags, BF3 version has 7, oh noes the map is unplayable!

Again back this up with evidence? Or can you?

Because IGN says 5, (in case you aren't very good with math, 3 in the 16 player Bf2 + the 2 that I stated were added).

http://www.ign.com/wikis/battlefield-3/Strike_at_Karkand

What a dumbass. You just admitted you haven't played the game. For some odd reason I can't seem to find a Google image of Strike at Karkand BF3 64-player version, but I know for a fact it has 7 flags. I would know because I was just playing it yesterday. I can't take a screenshot in-game now but I will.It has one more flag than BF2 west of the river and only 2 east of the river. So yeah it's a bit smaller but no big deal, there's plenty of room left. It makes action pretty hectic around B and C.

So these guys are complaining and haven't even played the game. LOL

Photoshop: still not a substitute for a valid argument.lowe0

Fine, don't believe me? Look up the Strike at Karkand large map for BF2, then the one in BF3, the size comparison I made in the pic is accurate.

The pic is the BF2 64 player version, the circled are represents the conquest large in BF3. And the number of flags is decieving, because if you take a smaller map and cramp the same number of flags into it doesn't magically make it the same size, nor does it remove any of the flaws of being a smaller map.

[QUOTE="lowe0"]Photoshop: still not a substitute for a valid argument.Stalkerfieldsis

Fine, don't believe me? Look up the Strike at Karkand large map for BF2, then the one in BF3, the size comparison I made in the pic is accurate.

The pic is the BF2 64 player version, the circled are represents the conquest large in BF3. And the number of flags is decieving, because if you take a smaller map and cramp the same number of flags into it doesn't magically make it the same size, nor does it remove any of the flaws of being a smaller map.

[QUOTE="nunovlopes"]

[QUOTE="menes777"]

Add in 2 more spawn points, move up the US spawnpoint and it's exactly identical. The map has the same general dimensions and it ends at the trainwreck. How do you think it's different?

menes777

Ends at the trainwreck?!?! WTH are you on to? What about the F and G flags! You do know there's Conquest and Conquest Large right?

So show me this BF3 map that's the same size as the BF2 map. Should be easy.

Conquest has 3 spawn points (exactly matching the BF2 16 player map).

Conquest large has 5 spawn points (exactly matching the BF2 16 player map in size, but adding 2 more spawn points).

And since you can't seem to actually argue, the argument isn't that BF3 is unplayable, it's that BF2 was bigger. Reading comprehension is really a lost art these days.

LOL Please stop with the self-ownage! It's too much.:lol:

I don't know about Conquest cause I never played it, but Strike at Karkand PC BF3 64-player Conquest Large has 7 flags, and that's a fact, I don't have a pic now.

[QUOTE="Stalkerfieldsis"]

[QUOTE="lowe0"]Photoshop: still not a substitute for a valid argument.lowe0

Fine, don't believe me? Look up the Strike at Karkand large map for BF2, then the one in BF3, the size comparison I made in the pic is accurate.

The pic is the BF2 64 player version, the circled are represents the conquest large in BF3. And the number of flags is decieving, because if you take a smaller map and cramp the same number of flags into it doesn't magically make it the same size, nor does it remove any of the flaws of being a smaller map.

[QUOTE="menes777"]

[QUOTE="nunovlopes"]

Ends at the trainwreck?!?! WTH are you on to? What about the F and G flags! You do know there's Conquest and Conquest Large right?

nunovlopes

So show me this BF3 map that's the same size as the BF2 map. Should be easy.

Conquest has 3 spawn points (exactly matching the BF2 16 player map).

Conquest large has 5 spawn points (exactly matching the BF2 16 player map in size, but adding 2 more spawn points).

And since you can't seem to actually argue, the argument isn't that BF3 is unplayable, it's that BF2 was bigger. Reading comprehension is really a lost art these days.

LOL Please stop with the self-ownage! It's too much.:lol:

I don't know about Conquest cause I never played it, but Strike at Karkand PC BF3 64-player Conquest Large has 7 flags, and that's a fact, I don't have a pic now.

LOL you are the one who can't support your arguments, you even admit you can't really know about the maps we are talking about. If it's fact you shouldn't have any trouble backing it up. And LOL at the whole I don't have a pic right now. You do realize that it doesn't take but 30 seconds to google an image and post it right?

[QUOTE="lowe0"][QUOTE="Stalkerfieldsis"]

Fine, don't believe me? Look up the Strike at Karkand large map for BF2, then the one in BF3, the size comparison I made in the pic is accurate.

The pic is the BF2 64 player version, the circled are represents the conquest large in BF3. And the number of flags is decieving, because if you take a smaller map and cramp the same number of flags into it doesn't magically make it the same size, nor does it remove any of the flaws of being a smaller map.

Jebus213

[QUOTE="Jebus213"][QUOTE="lowe0"] I'm referring to the humorous images. Well, attempts at humor, at least.lowe0

[QUOTE="lowe0"]

[QUOTE="Jebus213"] Oh I'm supposed to put it down in words while you understand the pics?Jebus213

[QUOTE="nunovlopes"]

[QUOTE="menes777"]

So show me this BF3 map that's the same size as the BF2 map. Should be easy.

Conquest has 3 spawn points (exactly matching the BF2 16 player map).

Conquest large has 5 spawn points (exactly matching the BF2 16 player map in size, but adding 2 more spawn points).

And since you can't seem to actually argue, the argument isn't that BF3 is unplayable, it's that BF2 was bigger. Reading comprehension is really a lost art these days.

menes777

LOL Please stop with the self-ownage! It's too much.:lol:

I don't know about Conquest cause I never played it, but Strike at Karkand PC BF3 64-player Conquest Large has 7 flags, and that's a fact, I don't have a pic now.

LOL you are the one who can't support your arguments, you even admit you can't really know about the maps we are talking about. If it's fact you shouldn't have any trouble backing it up. And LOL at the whole I don't have a pic right now. You do realize that it doesn't take but 30 seconds to google an image and post it right?

I'm not at home right now, so I can't launch the game and take a pic. But rest assured that I will. And Strike at Karkand has 7 flags in the PC 64-player version of BF3. The fact you don't know tells me all I need to know. You're complaining about dumbing down in a game you never played.

And I never played *Conquest* because I always play *Conquest LARGE*.

[QUOTE="nunovlopes"]

[QUOTE="menes777"]

So show me this BF3 map that's the same size as the BF2 map. Should be easy.

Conquest has 3 spawn points (exactly matching the BF2 16 player map).

Conquest large has 5 spawn points (exactly matching the BF2 16 player map in size, but adding 2 more spawn points).

And since you can't seem to actually argue, the argument isn't that BF3 is unplayable, it's that BF2 was bigger. Reading comprehension is really a lost art these days.

menes777

LOL Please stop with the self-ownage! It's too much.:lol:

I don't know about Conquest cause I never played it, but Strike at Karkand PC BF3 64-player Conquest Large has 7 flags, and that's a fact, I don't have a pic now.

LOL you are the one who can't support your arguments, you even admit you can't really know about the maps we are talking about. If it's fact you shouldn't have any trouble backing it up. And LOL at the whole I don't have a pic right now. You do realize that it doesn't take but 30 seconds to google an image and post it right?

Ok, here's proof. From the Strike at Karkand trailer:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjTmieRMKjoCheck the number of flags in the mini-map. 7.

Ouch!

[QUOTE="menes777"]

[QUOTE="nunovlopes"]

LOL Please stop with the self-ownage! It's too much.:lol:

I don't know about Conquest cause I never played it, but Strike at Karkand PC BF3 64-player Conquest Large has 7 flags, and that's a fact, I don't have a pic now.

nunovlopes

LOL you are the one who can't support your arguments, you even admit you can't really know about the maps we are talking about. If it's fact you shouldn't have any trouble backing it up. And LOL at the whole I don't have a pic right now. You do realize that it doesn't take but 30 seconds to google an image and post it right?

Ok, here's proof. From the Strike at Karkand trailer:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjTmieRMKjoCheck the number of flags in the mini-map. 7.

Ouch!

Those 7 flags are still cramped ontoa smaller map that doesn't work as well with 64 players. Both of you guys are wrong, the number of flags ar no indication of how the maps have been downgraded.

[QUOTE="nunovlopes"]

[QUOTE="menes777"]

LOL you are the one who can't support your arguments, you even admit you can't really know about the maps we are talking about. If it's fact you shouldn't have any trouble backing it up. And LOL at the whole I don't have a pic right now. You do realize that it doesn't take but 30 seconds to google an image and post it right?

Stalkerfieldsis

Ok, here's proof. From the Strike at Karkand trailer:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjTmieRMKjoCheck the number of flags in the mini-map. 7.

Ouch!

Those 7 flags are still cramped ontoa smaller map that doesn't work as well with 64 players. Both of you guys are wrong, the number of flags ar no indication of how the maps have been downgraded.

Ok just leave, you didn't play the game, you don't know sh1t, the map works quite well, you wouldn't know because you haven't played it.

Stop spewing BS about a game you never played.

Also, more ownage here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=VwNmzwopGl0#t=80s check the map layout, it's not that different from BF2.

[QUOTE="nunovlopes"]

[QUOTE="menes777"]

LOL you are the one who can't support your arguments, you even admit you can't really know about the maps we are talking about. If it's fact you shouldn't have any trouble backing it up. And LOL at the whole I don't have a pic right now. You do realize that it doesn't take but 30 seconds to google an image and post it right?

Stalkerfieldsis

Ok, here's proof. From the Strike at Karkand trailer:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjTmieRMKjoCheck the number of flags in the mini-map. 7.

Ouch!

Those 7 flags are still cramped ontoa smaller map that doesn't work as well with 64 players. Both of you guys are wrong, the number of flags ar no indication of how the maps have been downgraded.

So graphics are the only thing that matters. That's sad

So graphics are the only thing that matters. That's sad

sonic1564

While I agree that it's dumb to see 10 year old maps being 2-3 times larger, the TC needs to stop being an elitist ass about everything. There's a difference between stating a problem and discussing it calmly, and slamming your fists on the desk, crying over a topic beaten to death already last year

[QUOTE="whiskeystrike"]

[QUOTE="Stalkerfieldsis"]

Leave maybe? That would surely assist in the progression of logical discussion here.

Stalkerfieldsis

you are the one who started insulting people. logical discussion stopped there. what are you expecting out of this thread? people to just go buy gaming pcs and stop playing consoles? people to apologize to you? get over yourself guy, everyone who isnt a casual gamer is getting screwed over these days. i hate origin but love mass effect... still not gonna buy me3. no tears here.

There ya go, that's it...yes, I want people to pay for a better $600 to $800 device that is actually the same price or cheaper than a console setup because it replaces multiple devices and then people would get better gaming experiences and the industry would move along in a better direction.