Top
380°

Battlefield 3 Should Be Called Bad Company 3: Modern Combat On PS3 and Xbox

DICE is looking for community feedback when it comes to Battlefield 3. With the game still a few months away, there is plenty of time to work in a few changes.

Sadly if Battlefield 3 puts a player cap of 24 on consoles then many feel that they are not getting a true Battlefield experience and simply getting Bad Company 3 Instead.

Read Full Story >>
battlestrats.com
The story is too old to be commented.
Nitrowolf22354d ago

Makes some good points, and like you said Console owners, unless they have played BF2, then they won't be getting the real BF experience that PC gamers have been getting. My only concern is that if the Maps are optimized for 64 players on PC what exactly does that mean for console gamers?

lil Titan2354d ago

PS3 and 360 owners need to stand up and say something

Wenis2354d ago

BF2MC was a good game, as was BF1943. Obviously BF3 on consoles won't be as good as BF3 on PC but it will still be a good game.

In other words this article is just another about how PC version are better than console version... which is like, DUH.

Substance1012354d ago

Yea but this time around the developer hasnt held back like they usually do. Which is why the difference between Console and PC version is vast.

Personally i think any serious gamer should have a gaming capable PC for all the multiplats. It just makes more sense its cheaper, superior game play, has mods, supports all controllers (Mouse+KB, DS3, 360 controller) and offers the kind of BC consoles can only dream of.

captain-obvious2354d ago

just a question
so ok
PC is getting 64 consoles is getting what like 24 players ?

so there is a HUGE deference in players count
dose that mean that all versions will have the same maps ?? i mean in size ?
i mean 24 players would feel lost in a 64 BF map
dont you think ??

bumnut2354d ago

In earlier battlefield games, some of the maps could be scaled down for lower player counts

rdgneoz32354d ago (Edited 2354d ago )

"Personally i think any serious gamer should have a gaming capable PC for all the multiplats"

I do have such a PC, though not all multiplats are the best on the PC. Also, sometime people like to take their games with them to play at a friends and DRM crap on some games is not always the funniest experience.

p.s. Still hoping for at least 32 players for consoles.

hassi942353d ago

@captain obvious

I think the most logical thing to do would be to make 64 player maps, then split them up into 2-3 maps on consoles, then on consoles you'd have more, smaller maps.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 2353d ago
Ravenor2354d ago

The fog of war will probably limit how far you can move, the maps will have to be limited in size.

Ducky2354d ago (Edited 2354d ago )

I'm going to guess it means smaller maps.

If I had to guess even more, I'd say the player count is due to map size.
64 players requires big maps to accommodate, and when you consider destruction and all the other variables, that might be a bit too much for memory on the consoles.
Decreasing the map size should decrease the memory requirement, resulting in maps which are probably about the size of BadCompany.

Otherwise, number of players would usually come down to networking rather than visuals.

SixZeroFour2354d ago (Edited 2354d ago )

i always said if bf3 is only getting 24 for consoles, they might as well call it bfbc3 and make that exclusive to consoles and keep bf3 exclusive to pc

it just isnt the same game...just like 360/ps3 games that also have a wii version...it just isnt the same game

edit...btw, i too didnt expect 64 for consoles, i just wanted atleast 32-36

Maddens Raiders2354d ago

http://n4g.com/news/718169/...

n00bs always going all pear shaped over nothing....

Xfanboy2354d ago (Edited 2354d ago )

soooo.. You want a game that looks better than Crysis 1 to have 64 players in a massive environment? hmmm on a 512 mb ram console?? With an engine that is made primarily build for dx11 that doesn't even support dx9 on pc? O_o?

lol Whats wrong with dice they screwed console gamers man!!

BF2 used to scale to the amout of players in a match!
why would the put 24 plaers in this map?
http://www.youtube.com/watc...

expect 24 player maps..

Peppino72354d ago

I loved bad company 2 more than any other mp game2. If the only difference is a cap of 30 more players but gameplay is still as fun then im not gonna complain. My ps3 will still log a bunch of hours.

Paladz2354d ago

See console gamers. This is what happens when you accept developers not giving two shits about their games and just releasing unfinished content time over time. Content that isn't ready to be played and is buggy and not worth a penny.

Console gaming is the single-most devastating thing to ever happen to true gaming, which is ofcourse on a PC. Developers are lazy, they must fit their product into the console category(Largest crowd) which makes the PC versions dumbed down console trash.

Console players don't hate enough, all you do is whiny 24/7 on your microphones about how many "cheaters" you are playing against. Developers should take care of this, server admins could take care of this, but you don't want the best, you are satisfied with being treated like a 90's product instead of asking for what the developers can actually provide.

But I guess it lies with your nature, seeing as you are alright with using a controller, thus limiting your own experience in the first play, secondly you play on an outdated machine which cannot handle todays graphics.

What can I say? Purchase a PC if you want to play video games. Consoles have ruined several pc-franchises and more are falling in the grave.

Spinal2354d ago

Agreed. Console gaming This gen has had a negative impact on the gaming industry. Cause in the days of CS 1.6 and back when PC Gamer magazine was popular. Developers were always pushing for Innovation an taking bigger leaps in graphics.

The variety to PC Gaming was so Vast. Games like Messiah, Black & White, Populous, Soldier of Fortune, Kingpin. There were so many different kinds of titles to play. Now this console gen has become rehash shooter after rehash shooter.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 2353d ago
Warprincess1162354d ago

I love this video. It really unfair that the console version doesn't get 64 players. I understand the 360 is not capable of providing that many players in a game but the PS3 version could do 64 players. Mag and resistance 2 proved that so i guess DICE is just trying to make a small community of fans on the PC happy when they should be focusing on the platform that gone to sell the most copies. HINT: Consoles.

Nitrowolf22354d ago (Edited 2354d ago )

M.A.G. and Resistance aren't really good looking games though and Killzone 3 only does 24 that being the best looking FPS on PS3 which is a drop from KZ2 which had 32 players.
Even Resistance had a drop from 40 to 60 and now to just 16 players (once again look at the graphics)
Although these games proved that they could do that many players, it might be at the expense of the graphics, which i don't think DICE is willing to do.

Xbox 360 had Frontlines: Fuel of war, which could do 64 players, but i heard this game wasn't that good. But still it was capable of 64 players and even it wasn't that great looking.

-Alpha2354d ago (Edited 2354d ago )

She's trolling, no point explaining facts. No matter how many times Frontline is brought up, the same people continue pretending it doesn't exist so that they can continue lying.

As for BF3-- DICE can probably do it but this is a PC-primary franchise.

I bet it wouldn't even be made for consoles and I assume EA pushed consolization.

This is the true Battlefield sequel, so I expect them to dedicate resources towards the PC.

And while MAG was exclusive and worked with the PS3 and while Resistance was 60 players, they not only lacked the graphics that BF has, but also, both games lacked Destruction 2.0 which, to my knowledge, complicates matters too.

theonlylolking2354d ago (Edited 2354d ago )

The PS3 could do bad company 2 with MLAA and support 64 players.

MAG has better graphics when you play in real time and it is 256 players and could be more.

Resistance 1 and 2 are 60fps and they do high number of players. The reason R3 looks better than R1 and 2 is because they are now doing 30fps.

KZ2 is 32 players and has a big map(KZ2 players know what map I am talking about).

@pandamobile

Devs will almost never make any console better than the other because of fanboys. It is not it can't be done it is because of criticizing.

Ravenor2354d ago (Edited 2354d ago )

@lolking

Killzone 2 doesn't have tanks, APC, Humvee, Heli's, planes and other little vehicles. It doesn't have any of the things that Battlefield brings to the table. The same can be said of Resistance, oh and not even an hour ago I got off MAG I had been playing with my clan. MAG does not even approach Battlefield 3, neither does Resistance 2 and in terms of MP Killzone 3 gets a boot to the head.

cakeisalie2354d ago

@warprincess

nice try trolling, If PC is a minority then explain why BC2 is being played more on PC platform then any other platform.

As others have said Mag isnt an example since the game looks last gen. Resistance 2 doesnt have destructable environments and in multiplayer it doesnt look good either.

Trizard2354d ago

@theonlyloking
No f'ing way the PS3 had BFBC2 support 64 players.
You are just wrong, I am sorry.

theonlylolking2354d ago

@TRizard

I said could I did not say it did.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 2354d ago
Pandamobile2354d ago (Edited 2354d ago )

If the PS3 could do 64 players, it would.

That limitation isn't just for the 360.

Ravenor2354d ago

People don't seem to get that MAG is far from a visual powerhouse, it's numbers are irrelevant when you look at all the concessions made to get it to run!

wicko2354d ago

No kidding. Killzone 3 framerate is decent when you're playing operations with smaller teams, but even then the framerate will take a shit if too much is happening at once. Get into the 24 man matches and you're in for some chop. I don't think people realize how much of a performance impact just a couple of players can make.

goflyakite2354d ago

So lets say the PS3 could do it (hypothetically) , do you people actually think they would allow only the 360 to have 24 players? Hah..

slavish32353d ago

frontlines on 360 is 50 player cap. and there is FF MMO game too lol. so 360 can do it

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2353d ago
DigitalPiracy2354d ago

A small community of fans on the PC? Are you fucking kidding me?! Just go to bfbcs.com and you'll see that all three platforms are basically even in terms of players. Not to mention that a bunch of hardcore BF2 players may not have bought BC2 or are planning to upgrade once BF3 drops. PC is the lead platform for a reason.

lve2playbball2354d ago

@ Warprincess116

Why can't people (especially fanboys) just accept that the PS3 (and 360) cannot handle 64 players (for Battlefield 3)? It has already been said by a few others, but if they had support for 64 players the game would have to look like MAG, and let's be honest, MAG looks like crap.
Also, as others have stated, the PC community--especially for Battlefield--is HUGE. It's usually the younger crowd (and fanboy crowd) that think consoles can do the same things PC can. PS3 has had some gorgeous games but it hasn't even matched the original Crysis yet--and it won't. Don't get me wrong, I love Uncharted and GOW (beautiful graphics), but no console can truly match a PC's capability.

yarbie10002354d ago

Why can't people (Especially trolls who don't even bother looking at articles or watching videos) actually pay attention and see that NOWHERE in this video or the article asks for 64 players on consoles. In fact I make a point to say that 64 players on consoles is unrealistic.

READ BEFORE OPENING MOUTH

lve2playbball2353d ago

How bout you look at who I was talking to? You see the @ Warprincess116???
yeah, READ BEFORE OPENING MOUTH