Battlefield 3 map sizes on consoles different for ground and air combat.

It should comes as no surprise that the multiplayer map sizes for the PS3 and Xbox 360 versions of Battlefield 3 will be smaller than the PC version. The console version are limited to just 24 player matches while the PC version goes up to 64 players. However, DICE is making sure that there will be plenty of room for air combat in the game.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
hoops2536d ago

If they can increase the air combat count above 24 for consoles, that would be great for console gamers.

i_like_ff72536d ago

If you have money to buy multiple games a year just buy a new pc or upgrade your old one.

Soldierone2536d ago

Multiple games sounds a lot better than yearly PC upgrades....

evrfighter2536d ago

1 pc upgrade every 4 years is lot better than games that make your eyes bleed.

make this year your 4th year.

awi59512536d ago (Edited 2536d ago )


Admit it you bought your pc at walmart and you think you know about pc gaming. Yearly upgrades thats a joke. I bought my 4870's 3 years ago and no game has really pushed them but crysis and i run that maxed at 30 fps at 1080p with x16 af and x8aa.You really only need x4aa but i run 8aa so i can push my cards and see what they can do. And the truth i really dont feel i need to upgrade now B3 will be the game to upgrade for but i really dont need too.

My cards will still run it at high i just wont have the direct x11 features. Ill sell my cards maybe to someone who wants to build a cheap rig quick. Bad company 2 still runs at 60fps when i force x16aa and x32 AF so my cards still kick ass eventhough there old as crap.

You dont have to buy the latest cards you can find great cards for cheap on newegg that will max everything for like 129 bucks. Crysis is the only game that really gives anyones rigs any problems the other games get ran over.

Soldierone2536d ago

@AW Umm no, I took several years of tech school to become IT certified. I can build a high end computer for my liking, and know the ins and outs of every computer. I currently own two computers that can play todays games fine.

I have seen my PS3 go from Resistance Fall of Man to Metal Gear Solid 4 to Killzone 3 and haven't had to buy any new hardware,dont upgrade any graphics cards, or pay anything extra to get that. Ive become a bigger console gamer for a reason.

I dont have my head up my arse like most PC gamers that think anything and everything revolving around consoles suck. Is your average gamer gonna see the difference between a 30FPS and 60FPS screen? Nope. And it sure as hell aint something worth spending a few hundred extra bucks to get. Why not simply buy a system built to play games....

The whole "well my PC can get an extra pixel on the tip of the gun" crap is so annoying. As a console gamer WE DONT CARE, go pat yourself on the back and save up to buy a graphics card. We will go be gamers and play games.

Hellsvacancy2536d ago (Edited 2536d ago )

Oh dear, were on the PC bandwagon again, how about i put it a little different...

I agree B3 is gonna ROCK on the PC no doubt, but instead of "why do i wanna spend £500 every year upgradin my PC to play better games" why hasnt anybody said "why do i wanna spend £500 upradin my PC every year JUST to play a VERY select few games that are gonna push my rig to it limits, and not just that, im gonna miss out on tons of PS3 and 360 exclusives (mostly PS3) and hav to wait longer for multiplats (Red Dead for example)

So this whole "PC is better" means crap really, does graphics improve gameplay, you may hav the best lookin game in the world but if the games crap (imo Crysis 2 is pretty dull, didnt really like K3 either) how is it gonna make the game better?

captain-obvious2536d ago

BFBC2 had a bigger air area than ground
most of the time represented by sea

so this is not new

anubusgold2535d ago (Edited 2535d ago )


Your pulling stuff out of your butt. Anyone can see a huge diffrence in a game running on a pc at high settings compared to consoles. The diffrence in scale,draw distance,lighting,texture quality,Physics,Particle effects,no crappy jaggies all over the place and alot of games run way over 100 fps with no slowdown.

A game like killzone or gears 3 cant be done on console with detailed graphics,huge open world, with air and ground vehicles, with real time weather effect with loads of enemies. Sorry cant be done on this gen of hardware. When you attempt such a game on consoles the graphics drop to ps2 lvls.

And pc runs games at 2560 x 1600 thats far more than 1080P sony fanboys use to attack xbox fanboys. And we dont get butt raped with loads of overpriced DLC. So yeah you dont know what your talking about or just plain blind. One extra pixel my butt!

And you probably work for geek squad and you think you know pc games. I really hate those geek squad guys bunch of know nothing tards.

anubusgold2535d ago (Edited 2535d ago )


And whats the specs of the last pc you built? Im running 3 cards and i see a huge diffrence compared to my ps3 and xbox. You dont need to upgrade yearly thats a joke after the new cards come out the old cards drop to garbage prices. Just crossfire or sli your cards and your good to go for years. A good graphics cards from 3 years ago still maxes most games they just dont run it at 130 fps like the new cards that just came out. And you probably find a bunch of them on ebay for 60 or 100 bucks so go make you a monster rig for dirt cheap.

The recommended graphics card for crysis 2 costs 150 bucks on ebay buy two of them and now you have a 4 graphics card pc and thats just overkill. And a great cpu can be bought for 150 bones and there are great ones that run 130. I wish i could upgrade my 360 or ps3 in 3 to 4 years to get better games. 360 could need a good cheap new cpu in it right about now instead of having to buy another console in a year or two.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 2535d ago
Hanif-8762536d ago (Edited 2536d ago )

This has been known for ages now and yes you get the full map that PC owners have access to for jets on the console version

Neko_Mega2536d ago

Lame, I want both in the same game. You know like MAG!! Yes you don't get to fly really anything but their is something things.

wwm0nkey2536d ago

BF3 engine =/= MAG engine.

Even with the dedicated servers for BF3 there is still the vehicles, destruction and ect. PS3 and 360 also both have bandwith limits which further prevent the BF3 player count to increase.

Neko_Mega2536d ago

Even with dedicated servers? And MAG doesn't? Yeah don't think you know what you are talking about.

wwm0nkey2536d ago

You are aware MAG has to make HUGE cuts to the graphics and other things to get the bandwith limit and dedicated servers to allow the 200+ players right?

Battlefield 3 simply has much much more going on than MAG.

chak_2536d ago (Edited 2536d ago )


Jack-Pyro2536d ago

I'm sorry, but MAG will never compare with Battlefield 3....

Neko_Mega2536d ago

I don't know, lets see. MAG has 256 players on one map and BF3 only has 64 players on one map.

Yeah I think MAG beats it pretty badly, it may not look as good but looks isn't everything.

peowpeow2536d ago

More players = better game?

Soldierone2536d ago

Lets also not forget Resistance 2 has 64 players online. And Killzone 3 has what 32?

Cut little things back and up that anty on the PS3...360 can't keep up, then too bad. Why should PS3 suffer because of it?

awi59512536d ago (Edited 2536d ago )

Because pc has 8 to 16 gigs of ram and that doesnt work on consoles. And when im running games my pc is pulling 5gigs of ram while running games. There is alot you can do with that extra ram on pc that you just cant on consoles.

kancerkid2536d ago

You assume that the PS3 can handle more. Maybe your assumption is wrong, but you would never think as such because you are a fanboy.

Neko_Mega2536d ago

PC has all this stuff, but we don't see a 256 player games like MAG on PC.

Guess PC doesn't have the power or no one can do it, well with a name like Battlefield, you would think it would feel like one right? MAG feels more like a Battlefield then BF3.

Soldierone2536d ago


If you are referring to my assumption....well do facts make you a fanboy these days? Simply stating something in ones favor doesn't mean you hate the other.

Simple fact, PS3 offers these games with massive online and well...360 is lucky to get 24 in Halo...If they want my assumption changed, then throw a card on the table with more players online.

chak_2536d ago (Edited 2536d ago )

@neko : maybe you should have a look at planetside.


Thousands of players... at the same time... on the same server.

And that was 8 years ago.

So yeah, plase take back your mag and stop trash talking, you have no idea what BF3 is about, nor what a PC is capable of.

And mag looks like ass and plays like crap btw.

kancerkid2536d ago

You can't just say because one game has 64+ players, every single game that comes out can handle as such on every system.

That is stupid. Period.

You must literally know nothing about video game programming or architecture to state otherwise.

Uncharted 2 =/= Battlefield 3 =/= MAG etc.

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 2536d ago
awi59512536d ago

Mag is turbo ugly dont compare the two i was going to buy that game because i love socom. But after confrontation and the awful graphics in mag i dont know what those guys are thinking over there. I did get a cool head set out of confrontation thats the only good thing about it.

Neko_Mega2536d ago

You do know they update the graphics and it looks a heck alot better then any COD game.

ivant2536d ago (Edited 2536d ago )

Map size is not the issue DICE.

It's the number of vehicles .... air combat vehicles in particular .... Jets and attack helicopters.

There has to be lots of jets/copters, not just one or two per team.

From experience with Warhawk, 24 player games can still be enjoyable but only with half your team taking to the air ... for air support, combat or transport to target zones.

Since DICE wont be increasing the player count, they better give us lots and lots of combat air vehicles....please.

Solo2272536d ago

Do we really wants lots of jets?

There only 12 people per team... If you have 7-8 people in the air at once... Its gonna slow down action on the ground alot...

However there should be any Air combat/ missions mode... That kinda link Air support into a multi-objective mode...

ivant2536d ago (Edited 2536d ago )

Yes we do!

And no, it won't slow action down on the ground alot, unless your team is full of kdr obsessed lone wolfers.

It's Battlefield not Modern Warfare. Epic environments not confined.

Ever heard of Team work?! Coordinating your ground and air assets to ensure the accomplishment of the objective.

In BC2 mp, Attacama Desert was the best mp map but was dramatically hindered by only having one helicopter per team....let alone no jets.

There needs to be more air combat vehicles, for air combat, air support and quick transport to target....not just one craft and the luck of the draw who gets it first.

Ground combat only maps suck as they restrict gameplay.

Soldierone2536d ago

You are still talking to the COD crowd...Look at all the games that attempt to put in "team work" as the basis of the online enviroment. They dont work because everyone wants to do their own thing.

If a planes sitting there, they will take the plane, and it will slow down because not every person knows how to do it.

I like team work, i like when it works, and i like the aspects of it. However when you play online and you constantly get stuck with a bunch of 12 year olds doing their own thing, you no longer can enjoy the game because the other team will destroy you.

ERMAC_2536d ago (Edited 2536d ago )

You actually have a point. Player count really affects how vehicles will be used. Warhawk is a good example, it had 32 players, yet still had A-LOT of infantry deadspots since half your team was in the air(they had to be, without air superiority you lost as Warhawks are so good), the action pretty much moved from base to base(not dis-similar to goldrush in BF) and wasn't really spread out. Eucadia, Vaporfield, Omega Factory are good examples. The maps that it wasn't so bad on usually was 1v1s at non-hotspots.

It also kinda killed dropships. Yeah, they were somewhat weak, but they're potential was under-explored and could have had huge use in drops or such. You only had 16 players though, and instead of staying in a dropship taking potshots at Warhawks or doing a situational drop, they could be taking bases which was more important, which taking a Warhawk was better for taking bases anyway for quick travel.

With only 12 players per team, more than 3 or 4 Jets the infantry battles could be really spread out and uncommon, especially if they carry multiple people. Depends on how big the maps are, but with Jets I can't imagine them being small unless they're slow as ass...which would suck. It would basically be small team based game numbers on huge maps.

Shmotz2536d ago

Oh look. DICE giving their own game bad rep again.

BeastlyRig2535d ago

good thing console gamers buy anything..

mw3 will be the best selling console game even if they have bugs as a feature!

Show all comments (39)